oe, 


r>o  U  vo  <£. 


O 


BT  590  . E7  S7  1909 
Stalker,  James,  1848-1927. 
The  ethic  of  Jesus  accordin 
to  the  synoptic  gospels 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/ethicofjesusacco00stal_1 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


BY  KEY.  JAMES  STALKER,  D.D. 


IMAGO  CHRISTI:  The  Example  of  Jesus 

Christ.  With  an  Introduction  by  the  Rev.  Wm.  M. 

Taylor,  D.D.  Fourteenth  Edition.  i2mo,  cloth,  $1.50 

Rev.  Dr.  McCosh  says :  “  It  is  a  most  precious  book,  full  of 
practical  wisdom  and  tenderness,  fitted  to  quicken  and  nourish  the 
spiritual  life  in  the  soul.” 

THE  PREACHER  AND  HIS  MODELS. 

Fourth  Edition.  i2mo,  cloth  . $1.50 

THE  TRIAL  AND  DEATH  OF  JESUS 

CHRIST:  A  Devotional  History  of  our  Lord’s 

Passion.  Fourth  Edition.  i2mo,  cloth  .  .  .  $1.50 

“  Dr.  Stalker  has  never  written  with  more  eloquence  or  with 
more  illuminating’  insight.  He  pictures  the  tragic  scenes  with 
wonderful  vividness,  and  brings  out  the  meaning  and  purpose  of  it 
all  with  that  rare  and  accurate  understanding  of  it  which  have 
made  his  books  such  stimulating  commentaries.’  -  Chicago  Advance. 

THE  CHRISTOLOGY  OF  JESUS:  Being 
His  Teaching  Concerning  Himself  According 
to  the  Synoptic  Gospels.  i2mo,  cloth  .  .  $1.50 

THE  ATONEMENT.  12  mo,  cloth  .  .  $1.00  net. 

“The  work  is  carefully  and  thoroughly  done  as  indeed  every¬ 
thing  from  the  same  pen.  Dr.  Stalker  has  done  much  by  the 
publication  of  these  lectures  to  invest  with  new  interest  a  great 
subject— a  worthy  contribution  to  our  theology.” 

At  all  Booksellers,  or  sent  on  receipt  of 
price  by  the  Publishers : 


The  ethic  of  jesus 

ACCORDING  TO  THE  SYNOPTIC 
GOSPELS  *  By  the  REV.  JAMES 
STALKER,  m.a.,  d.d.  *  *  * 


NEW  YORK 

A.  C.  ARMSTRONG  AND  SON 

3  and  5  WEST  EIGHTEENTH  STREET 

1909 


TO 

THE  REV.  HUGH  R.  MACKINTOSH,  Phil.D.,  D.D., 

PROFESSOR  IN  THE  NEW  COLLEGE,  EDINBURGH, 

AND 

THE  REV.  FRED.  J.  RAE,  M.A., 

THE  MINISTERS  OF  BEECHGROVE  CONGREGATION, 

OF  WHICH  I  HAVE  BEEN  A  MEMBER 
SINCE  EXCHANGING  THE  PULPIT  FOR  THE  CHAIR, 

THIS  BOOK  IS  DEDICATED 
IN  TOKEN  OF  EDIFICATION  AND  DELIGHT 
DERIVED  FROM  THEIR  MINISTRATIONS  AND  FRIENDSHIP 


PREFACE 


HIS  book  has  been  intentionally  so  written  as 


to  be  capable  of  being  read  as  a  whole  by 
itself ;  yet  it  is  connected  with  The  Christology  of 
Jesus ,  already  published,  and  The  Mind  of  Jesus  as 
reported  by  St.  John ,  still  to  be  published  ;  and  the 
author  has  to  refer  the  curious  reader  to  the  first 
of  these  for  the  explanation  of  two  things — the  view 
taken  of  the  criticism  of  the  Gospels  and  the  reason 
for  deriving  the  materials  of  this  volume,  as  of  the 
preceding  one,  from  the  Synoptists  only. 

Of  monographs  on  the  ethical  teaching  of  our 
Lord  there  are  not  many  as  yet ;  but  the  subject 
receives  treatment  more  or  less  ample  in  works  on 
Christian  Ethics  in  general,  as  well  as  in  those  on 
New  Testament  Theology  ;  and  some  guidance  to 
these  treasures  will  be  found  in  the  footnotes. 

But  the  peculiarity  of  this  attempt  is  that  it  always 
draws  directly  on  the  words  of  Jesus  themselves,  to 
the  study  of  which,  in  both  their  great  masses  and 
their  minutest  fragments,  the  author  has  devoted  the 


vn 


PREFACE 


•  •• 
vin 

labour  of  a  lifetime.  For  this  reason  great  import¬ 
ance  is  attached  to  the  collection  of  texts  facing  the 
first  page  of  each  chapter,  by  which  the  reader  will  be 
able  to  control  the  representation  given  of  each  theme 
and  to  estimate  the  importance  to  be  attached  to  it. 

It  may  not,  indeed,  be  always  the  case  that  the 
topics  on  which  our  Lord  spoke  most  copiously 
were  the  most  important  or  those  on  which  He 
spoke  but  little  the  least  important  in  His  eyes.  It 
requires  a  happy  intuition  so  to  distribute  light  and 
shade  as  to  bring  out  the  relative  proportions  of 
the  parts  and  the  shape  of  the  whole.  How  far  the 
author  has  succeeded  in  thus  reproducing  the  mind 
of  Christ  it  is  not  easy  for  him  to  judge  ;  but  he 
is  not  without  hope  that  those  in  the  future  who 
will  grasp  the  Master’s  drift  more  justly  and  reach 
farther  down  into  the  depths  of  this  teaching  will 
recognise  him  as  a  fellow-student,  who  has  not 
shrunk  from  labour  and  to  whom  the  subject  has 
been  inexpressibly  dear. 

To  the  Rev.  Charles  Shaw,  Dundee,  thanks  are 
rendered  for  assistance  in  revising  the  proofs. 


Aberdeen,  i  September,  1909. 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  I  PAGE 

INTRODUCTORY:  WHAT  IS  ETHIC?  ......  I 


PART  FIRST 

THE  HIGHEST  GOOD 

CHAPTER  II 

THE  GOSPEL  OR  BLESSEDNESS  . 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD 


CHAPTER  III 


CHAPTER  IV 


RIGHTEOUSNESS  . 


•  » 


•  •  • 


•  •  •  • 


1*11 


CHAPTER  V 

MISSING  THE  HIGHEST  GOOD  . 


CHAPTER  VI 


21 


41 


59 


•  •  •  • 


SIN  •  0  •  • 


.  s3 


.  10; 


PART  SECOND 

VIRTUE 

CHAPTER  VII 

REPENTANCE . .  ,  *151 

CHAPTER  VIII 

FAITH.  .  . . .  175 

*  b 


X 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  IX  page 

THE  IMITATION  OF  CHRIST . 197 

CHAPTER  X 

THE  CROSS  AND  OFFENCES . 217 

PART  THIRD 

DUTY 

CHAPTER  XI 


THE  LOVE  OF  GOD . 24I 

CHAPTER  XII 

THE  THINGS  OF  GOD . 265 

CHAPTER  XIII 

THE  LOVE  OF  MAN . 289 

CHAPTER  XIV 

THE  THINGS  OF  MAN . 309 

CHAPTER  XV 

THE  FAMILY . 33I 

CHAPTER  XVI 

THE  STATE . 35 1 

EPILOGUE . .367 


APPENDIX  : 

THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  SOCIAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS,  BY 
THE  REV.  FRED.  J.  RAE,  M. A . 371 


INDEX 


399 


WHAT  IS  ETHIC? 


CHAPTER  I. 


INTRODUCTORY  :  WHAT  IS  ETHIC  ? 

NE  feature  of  the  teaching  of  our  Lord  about 


which  there  can  be  no  mistake  is,  that  He 
was  an  ethical  teacher.  This  lies  on  the  very  surface  ; 
for,  let  the  reader  open  the  record  of  His  words  where 
he  will,  it  is  on  an  ethical  matter  that  he  comes.  The 
Sermon  on  the  Mount,  for  example,  is  filled  with  this 
element  from  beginning  to  end.  If  there  be  matter 
of  a  different  kind  in  the  words  of  Jesus,  it  has  to 
be  sought  for,  and  does  not  lie  on  the  surface.  Of 
course  it  is  possible  that  the  element  which  is  the 
less  conspicuous  may  be  the  more  important ;  in 
which  case  we  shall  have  to  seek  for  it  as  for  hidden 
treasure.  But  the  element  which  is  the  more  copious 
has  a  claim  of  its  own  on  this  very  account ;  and  we 
may  begin  with  some  attempt  to  define  its  character 
and  scope. 

In  looking  about  for  a  clue  to  guide  us  in 
arranging  the  vast  mass  of  the  ethical  teaching  of 
Jesus,  it  is  natural  to  try,  first,  the  division  of  this 
kind  of  matter  adopted  by  systematic  thinkers  in  the 
ethical  sphere.  Now,  from  of  old  it  has  been  under- 


2 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS  • 


stood  that  the  science  of  Ethics  is  concerned  with 
three  subjects — the  Highest  Good,  Virtue  and  Duty 
— and,  by  a  brief  consideration  of  these  ancient 
philosophical  terms,  or  their  modern  equivalents,  we 
may  obtain  some  preliminary  notion  of  the  extent 
of  the  field  within  which  Jesus  is  to  be  our  teacher, 
and  we  may  find  a  clue  for  the  arrangement  of  our 
materials. 

First,  then,  let  us  consider  which  topics  come  within 
the  range  of  the  Highest  Good. 

In  speaking  of  the  Highest  Good  as  the  theme  of 
Ethics,  Aristotle  observes :  “  Every  art  and  every 
kind  of  inquiry,  and  likewise  every  act  and  purpose, 
seems  to  aim  at  some  good ;  and,  since  there  are 
many  kinds  of  actions,  and  many  arts  and  sciences, 
it  follows  that  there  are  many  ends  also.  E.g .,  health 
is  the  end  of  medicine,  ships  of  shipbuilding,  victory 
of  the  art  of  war,  and  wealth  of  economy.  But,  when 
several  of  these  are  subordinated  to  some  one  art  or 
science,  as  the  making  of  bridles  and  other  trappings 
to  the  art  of  horsemanship,  and  this  in  turn,  along 
with  all  else  that  a  soldier  does,  to  the  art  of  war, 
and  so  on,  then  the  end  of  the  master-art  is  always 
more  desired  than  the  end  of  the  subordinate  arts, 
since  these  are  pursued  for  its  sake.  And,  if  in  what 
we  do  there  be  some  end  which  we  wish  for  on  its 
own  account,  choosing  all  the  others  as  means  to 
this,  this  will  evidently  be  the  best  of  all  things. 


INTRODUCTORY :  WHAT  IS  ETHIC? 


3 


And  surely  from  a  practical  point  of  view  it  much 
more  concerns  us  to  know  this  good ;  for  then,  like 
archers  shooting  at  a  definite  mark,  we  shall  be  more 
likely  to  attain  what  we  want.”  * 

When,  in  the  Middle  Ages,  the  teaching  of  Aristotle 
was  revived,  it  was  in  the  Latin  language  that  men 
taught  and  learned  ;  and  the  term  employed  to  ex¬ 
press  Aristotle’s  ideal  was  summum  bonuniy  which, 
accordingly,  became  a  constant  topic  of  discussion 
among  moralists.  Pursuing  the  same  line  of  reflec¬ 
tion  as  Aristotle,  we  may  say  that  in  life  there  are 
thousands  of  good  things.  There  may  be  a  separate 
one  for  every  day  and  for  every  situation  ;  but  the 
smaller  ones  run  up  into  the  larger,  and  the  lower 
into  the  higher ;  and  there  must  be  at  the  top  one 
supreme  good,  to  the  attainment  of  which  all  the  rest 
serve  as  means.  To  determine  what  this  is  may  seem 
to  require  a  great  effort  of  abstract  thought ;  but  it  is, 
indeed,  a  very  practical  question.  No  human  being 
ought  to  be  willing  to  live  and  die  without  tasting  the 
very  best  which  life  can  afford.  The  very  humblest 
may,  in  moments  of  meditation,  inquire,  With  what 
purpose  has  my  Maker  sent  me  into  the  world? 
what  is  the  object,  which,  if  secured,  will  make  life 
a  success  but,  if  missed,  will  make  it  a  failure  ? 
This,  however,  is  nothing  else  but  the  ultimate  problem 
of  Ethics. 


/V 


*  Nicomachean  Ethics  (Peters’  translation),  i.  i,  2.  Some 
sentences  omitted. 


4 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


In  the  foregoing  extract  from  Aristotle,  it  may  be 
observed  that  the  word  “  end  ”  is  sometimes  employed 
as  an  equivalent  for  the  substantive  “  good  ” ;  and 
“  chief  end  ”  has  sometimes  been  used  in  English 
as  a  synonym  for  “highest  good,”  with  the  result 
that  the  idea  involved  has  been  made  familiar  to 
sections  of  the  population  not  generally  conversant 
with  philosophical  speculations.  Especially  has  this 
been  the  case  in  Scotland,  where  the  first  question 
of  the  Shorter  Catechism,  u  What  is  man’s  chief 
end  ?  ”  has  for  centuries  been  nearly  the  first  thing 
learned  in  the  home  or  the  school.  It  will  bear  a 
great  deal  of  reflection  why  this  should  have  been 
the  first  question  proposed  for  every  young  mind 
to  ponder.  It  seems  to  imply  at  least  that  the 
chief  end  or  highest  good  is  something  which  pro¬ 
foundly  concerns  everyone ;  so  that  even  the  youngest 
should,  at  the  earliest  opportunity,  have  their  attention 
directed  to  it.  It  is  true,  there  are  questions  which 
ought  to  be  asked  and  answered  at  the  very  com¬ 
mencement  of  life  but,  in  the  majority  of  cases, 
are  not  put  till  its  close ;  and  this  may  be  one  of 
them.  In  point  of  fact,  those  who  have  reflected 
with  any  earnestness  on  the  subject  may  be  few  in 
number.  Yet  it  is  the  prerogative  of  a  thinking 
being  to  know  for  what  end  he  has  been  sent  into 
the  world,  and  why  he  is  now  alive ;  and  those  who 
have  ever  reflected  deeply  on  such  questions  at  all 
will  probably  reflect  on  them  with  growing  interest  a§ 


INTRODUCTORY:  WHAT  IS  ETHIC? 


5 


the  years  go  by,  and  be  found  still  brooding  on  them 
even  in  old  age.  The  saying  of  Thomas  Carlyle, 
in  later  life,  is  well  known,  that  he  was  often 
thinking  of  the  first  question  he  had  learned  out  of  the 
Shorter  Catechism  and  of  the  wonderful  answer  to  it. 

Both  the  Highest  Good  and  Man’s  Chief  End  may 
be  phrases  from  which  the  modern  man  has  grown 
away  ;  but  the  idea  expressed  by  them  is  one  that 
can  never  grow  old  and  for  which  every  generation 
will  have  to  find  substitutes  of  its  own.  In  modern 
phraseology,  perhaps,  the  commonest  phrase  for  the 
same  notion  would  be  the  Ideal  of  Human  Life. 
At  present  the  need  of  ideals  is  widely  recognised. 
Though  the  majority  may  have  none  which  they 
have  avowed  to  themselves,  yet  all  have  them  who 
have  thought  seriously  about  life.  It  is  no  easy 
matter,  indeed,  to  keep  hold  of  an  ideal ;  it  slips 
away  amidst  the  excitements  of  society  and  the  pre¬ 
occupations  of  business ;  it  is  compromised  amidst 
the  onsets  of  temptation  and  the  accesses  of  passion  ; 
but  it  must  be  recaptured  and  set  up  as  the  signal 
and  standard  of  everyone  who  has  not  abandoned 
the  struggle  for  a  life  which  is  more  than  mere 
existence.  Now,  he  who  has  an  ideal  ought  to  be 
able  to  name  it ;  and  to  do  so  correctly  is  the  purpose 
of  Ethics. 

Secondly,  let  us  consider  the  range  of  topics  which 
would  be  embraced  under  a  discussion  of  Virtue. 


6 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


Virtue  was  a  great  word  in  the  ancient  world  ;  and 
in  modern  times  also  it  has  sometimes  held  a 
prominent  place  in  discussions  of  this  nature.  Of 
late,  however,  it  has  rather  lost  popularity,  for  reasons 
which  we  need  not  stop  at  present  to  investigate  ;  and 
other  terms  would  now  be  substituted  in  its  room. 
Of  these  the  commonest  is  Character ;  and  everyone 
would  understand  what  was  meant  by  the  statement 
that  the  formation  of  character  was  the  theme  of 
Ethics.  Indeed,  two  books  on  Ethics  bearing  this 
title  have  been  published  within  the  last  few  years.* 
Not  only,  however,  would  Character  be  now 
preferred,  as  a  name,  to  Virtue,  but  the  modern  mind 
would  assign  it  a  more  sacred  position  and  a 
higher  value.  To  Aristotle  the  welfare  of  the  State 
was  the  supreme  object,  and,  in  his  philosophical 
scheme,  Ethics  formed  a  branch  of  politics.  To  him 
personal  character  was  important,  but  only  as  a 
means  to  an  end — as  the  means  of  producing  an 
effective  citizen.  To  the  modern  mind,  on  the 
contrary,  character  is  an  ultimate  good,  sacred  above 
all  other  objects  and  deserving  of  pursuit  for  its 
own  sake.  ^  To  the  ancient  mind  virtue  appeared 
desirable  in  citizens,  because  a  state  composed  of 
virtuous  citizens  is  strong  ;  by  the  modern  mind  every 
political  arrangement  is  tested  by  the  kind  of  man 
it  produces. 

*  One  of  these,  Maccunn’s  The  Making  of  Character ,  is,  I 
can  vouch,  well  worth  reading. 


INTRODUCTORY:  WHAT  IS  ETHIC ? 


7 


Character  is  the  one  possession  that  is  elevated 
above  the  vicissitudes  of  fortune.  Everything  else 
may  be  lost ;  but,  if  this  remain,  he  to  whom  it 
belongs  has  still  the  best  of  life.  To  an  ancient 
Greek,  success  in  life  was  inconceivable  without 
a  certain  amount  of  good  fortune  ;  but,  the  moment 
character  is  recognised  in  its  absolute  worth,  it 
becomes  evident  that  what  is  called  misfortune  may 
be  no  less  advantageous  than  good  fortune ;  be¬ 
cause  character  is  developed  by  losses  and  crosses 
no  less  than  by  prosperity.  Indeed,  while  prosperity 
tempts  to  the  relaxation  of  moral  effort,  adversity 
makes  the  foolish  not  infrequently  consider ;  and  the 
very  finest  developments  of  character  are  rarely 
attained  without  a  considerable  amount  of  suffering. 
This  places  the  whole  of  the  less  fortunate  side  of 
experience  in  a  new  light  and  breaks  the  force  of 
merely  worldly  considerations. 

Life  is  simply  everyone’s  chance  of  obtaining 
character ;  and  the  life  of  everyone  will,  at  its  close, 
be  pronounced  a  success  or  a  failure,  not  on  account 
of  the  material  objects  he  has  accumulated  or  the 
pleasant  sensations  he  has  enjoyed,  but  on  account 
of  that  which  he  has  become.  By  this,  we  have 
reason  to  believe,  his  station  and  degree  will  be  fixed 
in  the  eternal  world  ;  but,  at  any  previous  stage,  it 
will  always,  to  a  person  gifted  with  sufficient  reflec¬ 
tion,  seem  to  be  a  question  of  supreme  moment  to 
ask,  “  Am  I  a  good  man  or  a  bad  ?  ”  and  especially, 


8 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


“  Am  I  becoming  better  or  worse  ?  ”  The  answer 
to  this  question,  given  from  point  to  point  in  any 
one’s  career,  is  his  real  history. 

Still,  the  ancient  way  of  thinking  and  speaking  of 
character  as  virtue  had  its  advantages,  and  among 
these  this  one  especially,  that  the  term  Virtue  sug¬ 
gested  the  virtues  of  which  it  was  composed.  These 
were  the  elements  which  go  to  the  formation  of  a 
good  character ;  and  in  classical  times  they  were 
reckoned  to  be  four — namely,  wisdom,  temperance, 
courage  and  justice.  Ancient  systems  of  Ethics 
largely  consist  of  the  definition  and  description  of 
these  virtues,  with  illustrations  of  their  action  in  the 
lives  of  the  heroes  of  Greek  and  Roman  history. 
Later,  the  three  Christian  virtues — faith,  hope  and 
love — were  added  to  the  pagan  ones  ;  and  human 
excellence  was  believed  to  consist  in  the  harmonious 
blending  of  all  seven.  This  is,  for  example,  the 
scheme  of  the  great  ethical  work  of  Thomas  Aquinas, 
which  forms  the  second  half  of  his  Sumnia ;  and 
extraordinary  ingenuity  is  shown  by  this  greatest  of 
the  schoolmen  in  bringing  the  whole  circle  of  human 
life  within  this  survey. 

While,  however,  the  details  of  character  require  to 
be  exhibited  one  by  one,  it  is  still  more  necessary 
to  trace  back  the  virtues  to  virtue  itself.  There  is 
a  unity  of  character  as  well  as  a  multiplicity  of 
characteristics.  And  here  our  modern  term  has  the 
advantage.  Philosophers  have  discussed  the  ques* 


INTRODUCTORY :  WHAT  IS  ETHIC? 


9 


tion,  whether  virtue  or  the  virtues  be  the  prius ,  and 
they  have  leaned  towards  the  latter  alternative  ;  but 
Christian  philosophy  would  incline  in  the  opposite 
direction,  for  it  lays  supreme  stress  on  motives  ;  and 
there  must  be  at  work  one  motive,  simple,  pure  and 
commanding,  in  the  formation  of  any  character 
entitled  to  be  reckoned  good  or  great. 

Aristotle  has  some  penetrative  remarks  on  the 
mode  in  which  virtue  is  acquired  and  perfected. 
“  None  of  the  virtues,”  he  observes,  "  is  implanted  in 
us  by  nature ;  for  that  which  is  by  nature  cannot  be 
altered  by  training.  For  instance,  a  stone  naturally 
tends  to  fall  downwards,  and  you  could  not  train  it 
to  rise  upwards,  though  you  tried  to  do  so  by  throwing 
it  up  ten  thousand  times  ;  nor  could  you  train  fire 
to  move  downwards,  nor  accustom  anything  which 
naturally  behaves  in  one  way  to  behave  in  any  other 
way.  Where  we  do  things  by  nature,  we  get  the 
power  first,  and  put  this  power  forth  in  act  afterwards  ; 
as  we  plainly  see  in  the  case  of  the  senses ;  for  it  is 
not  by  constantly  seeing  and  hearing  that  we  acquire 
these  faculties  ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  we  had  the 
power  first  and  then  used  it,  instead  of  acquiring  the 
power  by  use.  But  the  virtues  we  acquire  by  doing 
the  acts,  as  is  the  case  with  the  arts  also.  It  is  by 
harping  that  good  harpers  and  bad  harpers  are 
produced  ;  and  so  with  builders  and  the  rest ;  by 
building  well  they  will  become  good  builders,  and 
bad  builders  by  building  badly.  And  it  is  just  the 


10 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


same  with  the  virtues  also.  It  is  by  our  conduct  in 
our  intercourse  with  other  men  that  we  become  just 
or  unjust,  and  by  acting  in  circumstnnces  of  danger 
and  training  ourselves  to  feel  fear  or  confidence  that 
we  become  courageous  or  cowardly.  So,  too,  with 
our  animal  appetites  and  the  passion  of  anger ;  for, 
by  behaving  in  this  way  or  that  on  the  occasions  with 
which  these  passions  are  concerned,  some  become 
temperate  and  gentle,  and  others  profligate  and  ill- 
tempered.  In  a  word,  acts  of  any  kind  produce 
habits  or  character  of  the  same  kind.  Hence  we 
ought  to  make  sure  that  our  acts  be  of  a  certain  kind, 
because  the  resulting  character  varies  as  they  vary.”  * 

Although  instinct  with  wisdom,  these  remarks 
raise  many  questionable  points,  which  go  down  to 
the  very  foundations ;  but  on  the  discussion  of  these 
I  need  not  now  enter,  the  mere  words  of  the  passage 
being  sufficient  to  indicate  the  vast  scope  of  the 
inquiry;  and  this  is  all  at  which  I  am  at  present 
aiming. 

Thirdly,  we  come  to  the  topics  embraced  in  the 
notion  of  Duty. 

This  is  undoubtedly  the  mode  of  conceiving  Ethics 
which  falls  in  most  with  popular  habits  of  thought. 
In  even  the  rudest  states  of  society,  long  before  any 
such  ideas  as  the  Highest  Good  and  Virtue  have 
formed  themselves  in  the  public  mind,  there  exist 


*  Nicomachean  Ethics ,  ii.  I.  Some  sentences  omitted. 


INTRODUCTORY :  WHAT  IS  ETHIC? 


ii 


certain  impressions  of  things  that  ought  not  to  be 
done ;  and  the  earliest  attempts  at  legislation  are 
designed  to  fix  these  firmly  in  the  public  mind. 
Laws  like  those  of  the  Twelve  Tables  at  Rome  or 
those  of  Solon  at  Sparta  are  hung  up  in  the  market¬ 
place,  that  they  may  wear  themselves  into  the  minds 
of  the  citizens  through  constant  repetition  ;  or  the 
world  is  put  in  possession  of  a  code  like  the  Ten 
Commandments,  which,  when  lodged  in  the  memory, 
easily  suggests  a  hundred  details  of  duty. 

Duty  always  presupposes  a  table  of  laws  which 
have  to  be  fulfilled ;  but  it  is  one  of  the  most 
difficult  tasks  of  Ethics  to  determine  whence  such 
a  table  is  derived.  Is  it  a  primitive  writing  on  the 
conscience,  which  experience  is,  indeed,  needed  to 
reveal,  but  which  exists  in  all  mankind  alike  from 
their  birth  ?  is  it  a  positive  revelation  like  that  at 
Mount  Sinai,  where  the  voice  of  the  Almighty 
thundered  forth  the  law  and  His  finger  inscribed  it 
on  tables  of  stone,  and  has  it  been  propagated  from 
the  people  of  Jehovah  to  the  other  races  of  the 
earth  ?  or  is  it  the  slowly  accumulated  experience  of 
the  race,  which,  having  in  the  course  of  time  tested 
every  alternative  of  conduct,  has  thereby  made  up 
its  mind  as  to  the  benefits  resulting  from  certain 
acts  and  the  disadvantages  flowing  from  others, 
and  has  so  steadily  rewarded  the  one  class  and 
punished  the  other,  that  its  convictions  now  pass 
almost  unconsciously  from  one  generation  to  another, 


12 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


invested  with  religious  awe  ?  This  question  as  to 
the  origin  of  the  moral  law  and  the  nature  of  the 
sanction  by  which  it  is  supported  is  the  one  which 
has  especially  attracted  the  English  mind,  and  our 
native  ethical  writers  have  discussed  it  so  zealously 
that  they  have,  as  a  rule,  paid  comparatively  little 
attention  to  the  task  of  enumerating  the  duties  in 
detail  which  the  moral  law  sanctions  or  arranging 
these  in  systematic  form.* 

This  blank  has,  however,  been  admirably  filled  up 
by  the  ethical  thinkers  of  other  countries,  who  have 
pursued  Duty  into  every  secret  corner  and  constructed 
the  whole  map  of  life,f  showing  what  has  to  be 
done  and  what  avoided  in  every  conceivable  situa¬ 
tion.  With  this  in  view,  all  the  different  relations 
into  which  the  individual  can  enter — such  as  the 
family,  the  State,  the  Church — have  been  comprehen¬ 
sively  canvassed,  for  it  is  in  these  that  the  duties 
of  the  individual  come  to  light ;  and  every  position 
which  the  individual  can  occupy  in  relation  to  others 
— such  as  that  of  superior,  inferior  and  equal — has 
been  considered.  Thus  does  the  scope  of  Ethics 


*  An  exception  ought,  however,  to  be  recognised  in  Richard 
Baxter,  who  is  deserving  of  a  more  prominent  place  than  he  has 
received  in  the  history  of  philosophy.  His  Christia?i  Directory , 
divided  into  Christian  Ethics,  Christian  Economics,  and  Christian 
Politics,  discusses  with  the  skill  of  a  practised  casuist  innumer¬ 
able  details  of  conduct. 

t  The  Map  of  Life  is  the  happy  title  of  a  recent  work  on 
Ethics  from  the  pen  of  Mr.  Lecky,  the  historian. 


INTRODUCTORY :  WHAT  IS  ETHIC? 


13 


expand  on  every  hand  ;  for,  in  connection  with  the 
family,  such  problems  as  love,  marriage,  divorce  and 
the  like  have  to  be  treated  ;  and,  in  connection  with 
the  State,  the  still  more  difficult  problems  of  war, 
legislation,  capital  and  labour  and  the  like.  To  the 
ordinary  mind  morality  appears  a  simple  affair,  and 
it  is  often  said  that  a  man  can  be  in  no  situation 
in  which  he  cannot  easily  discover  what  his  duty 
is,  if  he  has  an  honest  desire  to  know  it ;  *  but,  when 
the  relations  of  Church  and  State,  of  capital  and 
labour,  of  nation  and  nation  are  recognised  as  in¬ 
cluded  within  the  scope  of  Ethics,  the  subject  becomes 
exceedingly  intricate,  and,  although  the  guidance 
supplied  by  a  good  conscience  is  by  no  means  to 
be  disparaged,  yet  it  has  to  be  recognised  that 
morality  is  a  region  in  which  both  the  race  and  the 
individual  still  stand  in  dire  need  of  instruction. 

From  whatever  source,  however,  the  knowledge  of 
duty  may  be  derived,  there  is,  in  every  case,  at 
last  an  alternative  presented  to  the  will — to  act  in 
accordance  with  the  law  or  in  defiance  of  it — and, 
when  the  choice  is  made  and  the  moment  of  decision 
past,  there  is  left  in  the  mind  either  the  satisfaction 
of  duty  done  or  the  sense  of  guilt  on  account  of 

*  “  Let  any  plain,  honest  man,  before  he  engages  in  any  course 
of  action,  ask  himself,  ‘  Is  this  I  am  going  about  right,  or  is 
it  wrong?  Is  it  good,  or  is  it  evil?’  Ido  not  in  the  least 
doubt  but  that  this  question  would  be  answered  agreeably  to 
truth  and  virtue,  by  almost  any  fair  man  in  almost  any  circum¬ 
stances.” — Bishop  Butler  :  Third  Ser?no7i  on  Human  Nature. 


*4 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


failure  or  transgression.  These  are  among  the  most 
peculiar  and  august  feelings  of  our  nature,  and  they 
have  a  momentous  part  to  play  in  the  regulation  of 
conduct  and  the  deepening  of  experience. 

The  oftener  either  the  right  or  the  wrong  choice 
is  made,  the  easier  is  it  to  repeat  the  same  ;  that  is 
to  say,  the  ability  to  do  right  is  strengthened  by 
practice,  and,  by  the  same  psychological  lav/,  the 
heart  is  hardened  in  a  guilty  course.  Gradually,  to 
act  either  on  the  side  of  conscience  or  in  the  opposite 
direction  becomes  a  habit,  and  the  general  drift  of  the 
life  is  determined  accordingly.  But  may  this  current 
become  so  strong  so  as  to  leave  no  room  for  choice  ? 
In  other  words,  is  the  will  free?  This  is  the  most 
fundamental  question  of  Ethics,  and  it  has  given  rise, 
not  only  to  enormous  quantities  of  speculation,  but 
to  no  little  confusion  of  thought.  The  freedom  of 
the  will  has  been  denied  in  the  interest  of  theological 
orthodoxy  by  those  holding  strong  views  of  the 
depravity  of  human  nature  and  the  absolute  sove- 
reignty  of  God  in  the  work  of  redemption  ;  it  has 
been  denied  in  the  interest  of  humanitarianism  by 
persons  so  impressed  by  the  heavy  burden  of  heredity 
transmitted  by  criminals  to  their  offspring  that  they 
have  yearned  to  relieve  the  latter  from  the  weight 
of  responsibility ;  it  is  denied  in  the  interest  of 
materialism  by  those  who  look  upon  nature — human 
life  and  individual  action  included — as  an  uninterrupted 
series  of  causes  and  effects,  flowing  on  with  mechanical 


INTRODUCTORY:  WHAT  IS  ETHIC? 


15 


and  inexorable  regularity.  But,  while  it  is  acknow¬ 
ledged  that  the  exact  definition  of  liberty  is  difficult, 
on  the  whole  the  testimony  of  consciousness  to  the 
reality  of  moral  choices  is  too  clear  and  universal 
to  be  contravened  ;  all  men’s  judgments  of  one 
another  are  built  upon  it,  and  without  it  no  science 
of  Ethics  would  be  possible. 

Thus  have  I  given  a  bird’s-eye  view  of  the  scope 
of  Ethics,  and  of  the  different  fields  into  which  its 
vast  territory  is  divided  ;  although  careful  ethical 
philosophers  are  wont  to  point  out  that  the  three 
ideas  of  the  Highest  Good,  Virtue  and  Duty  do  not 
designate  different  portions  of  the  territory  so  much 
as  different  ways  of  viewing  the  same  subject.  The 
entire  field  of  Ethics  can  be  surveyed  from  each  of 
these  points  of  view.  Yet  there  is  a  wide  difference 
between  the  three  things.  The  Highest  Good  is  the  \ 
end  of  moral  action  ;  Virtue  or  Character  is  the  ani¬ 
mating  force  by  which  this  goal  is  to  be  attained  ; 
and  Duty  prescribes  the  path  along  which  the  end 
must  be  sought.* 

*  A  penetrative  discussion  of  the  Highest  Good,  Virtue  and 
Duty,  as  the  three  main  ethical  conceptions,  will  be  found  in  a 
work  of  the  younger  Dorner,  Das  menschliche  Handeln ,  pp.  28 7- 
329.  Those  disposed  to  think  out  the  subject  further  for  them¬ 
selves  may,  with  advantage,  try  these  three  conceptions  in  the 
opposite  order — Ethics,  first,  as  the  doctrine  of  Duty,  or  con¬ 
formity  to  law  and  custom  ;  second,  as  Virtue,  the  power  of 
doing  duty  acquired  by  long  and  conscientiously  doing  it ;  third, 
as  the  Highest  Good,  which  is  the  reward  of  well-doing.  There 


i6 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


The  reason  why  I  have  considered  it  desirable  to 
dwell  so  long  on  a  description  of  the  ethical  field 
is  because  this  is  the  territory  in  which  Jesus  as 
a  teacher  moves ;  and  the  different  questions 
suggested  are  those  on  which  guidance  from  Him 
is  received.  To  this  it  may  be  objected,  that  our 
Lord  was  no  philosopher  or  systematic  teacher,  but 
a  preacher  to  the  people,  who  moved  from  subject 
to  subject  without  constraint,  and  whose  words  have 
all  the  freedom  and  naturalness  generally  lacking  in 
schemes  of  philosophy.  Nothing  could  be  more  true  ; 
and  yet  at  the  back  of  the  mind  of  Jesus  there  must 
have  been,  consciously  or  unconsciously,  a  connection 
between  thought  and  thought — in  short,  a  view  of 
the  universe,  and  especially  of  human  life,  to  which 
it  is  the  task  of  science  to  work  back  through  the 
close  and  connected  study  of  His  words. 

In  the  sequel  we  shall  frequently  have  to  emphasize 
the  contrast  between  the  teaching  of  Jesus  and  that 
of  philosophy,  but  all  the  more  on  this  account  may 
we  commence  with  recognising  the  fundamental 
identity.  If  Jesus  was  Supreme  Master  in  the  ethical 

has  been  frequent  discussion  about  the  propriety  of  applying 
this  threefold  division  to  Christian  Ethics  in  general ;  and  opinion 
has  of  late  been  rather  going  against  it.  Schleiermacher,  though 
employing  it  in  his  Philosophical  Ethics,  did  not  make  use  of 
it  in  his  great  (posthumous)  work  on  Christian  Ethics,  Die 
Christliche  Sitte ,  but  Rothe  reverted  to  it  in  his  Theologische 
Ethik .  I  do  not  remember  to  have  seen  it  applied  before  to  the 
ethical  teaching  of  Jesus. 


INTRODUCTORY :  WHAT  IS  ETHIC? 


17 


domain,  His  ideas  will  be  found  to  fit  into  the  map 
of  this  domain  made  by  science,  provided  science 
has  been  successful  in  her  own  task  of  delimiting  and 
dividing  the  field.  In  point  of  fact,  it  will,  I  believe, 
be  found  that  the  answers  proceeding  from  the  Great 
Teacher  are  directed  to  the  very  problems  on  which 
the  human  mind  has  always  been  pondering.  I 
have  no  intention  of  crushing  into  an  artifical  frame¬ 
work  the  unconstrained  teaching  of  Jesus  ;  but  His 
words  will  arrange  themselves,  without  any  force, 
under  the  headings  of  the  Highest  Good,  Virtue  and 
Duty.  These  conceptions  will  enable  us  to  classify 
the  subjects  with  which  His  mind  and  teaching  were 
occupied ;  and,  by  keeping  this  scheme  before  us, 
we  shall  be  able  to  obtain  a  comprehensive  grasp 
of  His  doctrine  as  a  whole.  It  is  not  my  intention 
to  stick  anxiously  to  this  division  ;  to  do  so  would 
be  out  of  harmony  with  the  nature  of  the  subject. 
I  will  use  it  as  a  clue,  not  as  a  fetter  ;  but,  I  am 
satisfied,  it  will  be  a  distinct  advantage  to  keep  it  in 
view  and  to  recur  to  it  from  time  to  time. 


2 


PART  FIRST 

THE  HIGHEST  GOOD 


THE  GOSPEL  OR  BLESSEDNESS 


Matt.  iv.  23. 

Mark  i.  1,  14,  15. 

Luke  i.  19. 

ix.  35- 

viii-  35* 

ii.  10. 

xi.  5. 

x.  29. 

iv.  18,  43. 

xxiv.  14. 

xiii.  10. 

vii.  22. 

xxvi.  13. 

xiv.  9. 

viii.  1. 

xvi.  15. 

ix.  6. 

xvi.  16. 

XX.  I. 

Matt.  xi.  3-1 1. 

Luke  vi.  20-23. 

xiii.  16. 

vii.  23. 

xvi.  17. 

x.  23,  28. 

xxiv.  46. 

xi.  28. 

xii.  37>  3^,  43 

xiv.  14,  15-24 

xv.  22-24. 
xxiv.  36. 


CHAPTER  II. 


THE  GOSPEL  OR  BLESSEDNESS 

WHEN  Aristotle  and  the  ancient  thinkers  spoke 
of  the  Highest  Good,  their  meaning  was, 
that,  in  this  earthly  life  of  ours,  there  is  for  everyone 
a  single  supreme  attainment,  which,  if  missed,  will 
render  life  a  failure  but,  if  gained,  will  render  it  a 
success.  And  it  can  escape  the  notice  of  no  attentive 
reader  of  the  Gospels  that  the  same  truth  underlies, 
as  an  assumption,  the  entire  teaching  of  Jesus,  besides 
being  expressed  by  Him  in  a  variety  of  forms.  This, 
for  example,  is  what  is  intended  in  such  parables 
as  the  Pearl  of  Great  Price  and  the  Plidden  Treasure, 
which  imply  that  this  world  affords  to  everyone  a 
supreme  opportunity  of  making  life  worth  living. 
The  same  is  implied  in  His  frequent  promise  to 
give  “life”  to  those  who  come  to  Plim.*  But  the 
most  obvious  expression  of  this  intention  is  the 
constant  use  by  Jesus  of  the  word  Gospel  as  a 
comprehensive  name  for  His  message. 

*  Matt.  vii.  14;  xviii.  8,  9;  xix.  16,  17,  29;  xxv.  46;  Mark 
ix.  43,  45;  x.  30;  Luke  xviii.  30.  So  “peace,”  Mark  v.  34; 
Luke  vii.  50  ;  and  “  rest,”  Matt.  xi.  29. 


21 


22 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


In  its  original  sense,  this  term  *  summons  up  in 
the  imagination  the  picture  of  a  city  in  a  state  of 
uncertainty  and  anxiety.  The  watchmen  on  the 
walls  are  looking  eagerly  in  a  certain  direction.  At 
last  a  messenger  is  descried  in  the  distance,  his 
manner  of  running  betokening  that  he  is  the  bearer 
of  glad  tidings.  At  the  gate  of  the  city  he  is  met 
by  the  multitude,  who  crowd  round  him.  He  un¬ 
folds  his  tale,  which  rapidly  passes  from  mouth 
to  mouth  and  from  group  to  group,  till  the  whole 
city  is  rocking  with  excitement  and  jubilation. 
St.  Matthew  enters  exactly  into  the  spirit  of  such  a 
scene  when  he  describes  the  commencement  of  the 
preaching  of  Jesus  in  these  words:  “The  people 
which  sat  in  darkness  saw  a  great  light,  and  to  them 
which  sat  in  the  region  and  shadow  of  death  light 
is  sprung  up  ”  ;  and  the  descriptions  in  all  the  Gospels 
of  the  opening  ministry  of  our  Lord,  when  the  in¬ 
habitants  of  city  and  village  came  streaming  in 
thousands  from  one  end  of  the  country  to  the  other, 
to  hear  His  preaching  and  profit  by  His  miracles, 
entirely  correspond  to  such  a  situation.  In  the  later 
stages  of  the  earthly  course  of  Jesus  this  sunny  aspect 
of  His  ministry  may  not  have  been  so  conspicuous ; 
but  it  reasserted  itself  in  the  early  preaching  of  the 
apostles  after  the  Resurrection.  Wherever  St.  Paul, 
for  example,  went  as  a  missionary,  he  must  have 
conveyed  the  impression  that  he  was  bringing  tidings 


*  To  evayyiktov. 


THE  GOSPEL  OR  BLESSEDNESS 


23 


which  it  concerned  everyone  to  hear  for  his  own 
welfare  and  happiness  ;  and,  in  spite  of  the  persecu¬ 
tions  he  had  to  endure,  he  himself  was  borne  up 
with  the  sense  that  he  was  the  bearer  of  a  secret 
of  infinite  value.  This  is  the  fundamental  note  of 
Christianity  at  all  times  ;  the  salt  has  lost  its  savour 
if  the  preaching  of  the  Christian  pulpit  does  not 
convey  an  impression  of  gladness,  novelty  and 
surprise. 

When,  however,  we  take  the  next  step  and  inquire 
about  the  contents  of  the  good  news  of  which  Jesus 
was  the  herald,  the  reply  is  not  exactly  what  might 
be  anticipated.  If  the  ordinary  man  were  asked 
what  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  was  about,  he  would  reply 
without  hesitation  that  it  was  the  gospel  “of  salva¬ 
tion,”  or  “  of  the  grace  of  God,”  or  perhaps  “  of 
justification  by  faith.”  But,  if  requested  to  verify  his 
statement  by  reference  to  the  actual  words  of  Christ, 
he  would  scarcely  be  able  to  produce  from  the  record 
a  trace  of  such  phraseology.  What  he  would  find, 
in  place  of  it,  would  be  “  the  gospel  of  the  kingdom,” 
or  “  the  gospel  of  the  kingdom  of  God,”  or  “  the 
gospel  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,”  all  these  forms 
of  the  same  phrase  occurring  in  the  Gospels,  and 
being  constantly  employed  as  comprehensive  expres¬ 
sions  for  the  message  delivered  by  our  Lord  and  the 
apostles.  Thus  “  the  Gospel  ”  may  be  called  the 
envelope  in  which  the  message  of  Jesus  comes,  while 
“  the  kingdom  ”  is  the  message  itself 


24 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


The  tendency  has  prevailed  of  late  to  pass  the 
former  term  lightly  by  and  concentrate  attention  on 
the  latter.  But  this  is  an  envelope  which  conveys 
a  message  of  its  own,  besides  the  one  which  it  en¬ 
closes  :  there  lies  a  deep  significance  in  the  fact  that 
the  most  comprehensive  name  for  the  teaching  of 
Jesus  is  the  Gospel,  as  well  as  in  the  other  fact  that 
this  gospel  is  the  Gospel  of  the  Kingdom. 

The  Gospel  is  the  superior  idea,  beneath  which  the 
other  is  subsumed ;  and  it  is  not  a  matter  of  in¬ 
difference  which  is  taken  first.  In  our  Lord’s  con¬ 
ceptions  of  Himself  and  of  His  plan  there  mingle 
two  elements — the  one  temporary  and  local,  the  other 
universal  and  eternal — and,  while  the  former  of  these 
might  come  under  the  general  title  of  “  the  Kingdom,” 
the  latter  would  naturally  be  described  as  “  the 
Gospel.”  At  present  there  is  on  the  Continent  a 
very  active  school  of  young  theologians  who  start 
from  the  former  side,  emphasizing  the  messianic 
element  in  the  consciousness  of  Jesus.  They  main¬ 
tain  that,  like  every  other  historical  character,  Jesus 
was  the  creature  of  His  age,  and  must  be  interpreted 
as  a  product  of  the  conditions  amidst  which  He  was 
born  and  brought  up.  Hence  they  throw  themselves 
with  avidity  on  the  literary  remains  of  the  age  im¬ 
mediately  preceding  His  birth.  These  are  principally 
of  the  apocalyptic  and  pseudepigraphical  order,  and 
to  the  ordinary  reader  a  weariness  of  the  flesh ; 
but  to  such  enthusiasts  nothing  is  discouraging,  and 


THE  GOSPEL  OR  BLESSEDNESS 


25 


they  are  editing  the  relics  of  one  of  the  most  arid 
epochs  of  the  human  mind  with  wonderful  persever¬ 
ance,  and  pouncing  upon  every  word  and  phrase 
bearing  any  resemblance  to  an  anticipation  of  a 
thought  of  Jesus.  According  to  them,  Jesus  was 
confined  within  the  circle  of  the  ideas  of  His  time, 
and  His  conception  of  Himself  and  His  own  career 
was  entirely  messianic.  When  at  last  His  death  was 
impending  and  manifestly  inevitable,  He  took  refuge 
in  the  notion  of  a  second  coming,  when  He  should 
achieve  all  the  glory  which  He  had  expected  but 
which  had  failed  to  accrue  to  Him  at  His  first 
appearance.  In  this  belief  He  died,  and  He  be¬ 
queathed  the  illusion  to  His  followers,  who  all  ex¬ 
pected  Him  to  reappear  within  a  generation. 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  for  all  this  a  great  deal 
that  is  plausible  may  be  said,  or  that  a  large 
number  of  the  sayings  of  Jesus  can  be  quoted  in 
support  of  it.  But  there  is  an  opposite  side  of  His 
consciousness,  which  is  left  entirely  unexplained. 
It  can  be  proved  from  His  words  that  He  foresaw 
and  foretold  a  slow  and  gradual  development  of  His 
cause  such  as  history  has  actually  exhibited  ;  anc 
nothing  is  more  certain  than  that  He  expected  to  be 
put  by  His  death  into  a  new  and  world-wide  relation¬ 
ship  to  men.  No  theory  of  His  consciousness  which 
does  not  do  justice  to  such  facts  can  be  regarded 
with  confidence. 

This  is  well  expressed  by  Harnack  in  his  recently 


26 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


published  work,  The  Essence  of  Christianity ,  and  his 
words  are  all  the  more  interesting  because  of  his 
near  kinship  with  the  school  just  referred  to.  “  Cer¬ 
tainly,”  he  remarks,  “  the  task  of  the  historian  is  diffi¬ 
cult  and  responsible  when  he  has  to  separate  kernel 
from  shell,  what  is  inherited  from  what  is  original, 
in  the  preaching  of  Jesus  about  the  kingdom  of  God. 
How  far  dare  we  go  ?  We  must  not  take  from  this 
preaching  its  native  quality  and  colour,  converting 
it  into  a  bloodless  moral  system.  But,  on  the  other 
hand,  we  must  not  lose  its  peculiar  power  by  acting 
as  those  do  who  resolve  the  whole  into  a  complex 
of  contemporary  fancies.  The  way  in  which  Jesus 
Himself  distinguished  among  the  ideas  of  His  con¬ 
temporaries,  casting  none  aside  in  which  there  was  a 
spark  of  ethical  power,  and  adopting  none  by  which 
the  ambitious  expectations  of  His  fellow-countrymen 
would  have  been  strengthened,  proves  that  He  spoke 
and  preached  out  of  a  deeper  knowledge  than  theirs. 
But  we  possess  much  more  striking  proofs.  He 
who  desires  to  know  what  the  kingdom  of  God  and 
the  coming  of  this  kingdom  mean  in  the  preaching 
of  Jesus  must  read  and  ponder  His  parables.  There 
it  will  dawn  upon  him  what  Jesus  is  thinking  about. 
The  kingdom  comes  when  it  comes  to  the  individual, 
making  entry  to  the  soul  which  embraces  it.  The 
kingdom  is  the  reign  of  God,  no  doubt  ;  but  it  is  the 
reign  of  the  holy  God  in  individual  hearts,  it  is  God 
Himself  with  His  power.  Everything  dramatic,  in 


THE  GOSPEL  OR  BLESSEDNESS 


27 


the  external  and  historical  sense,  here  disappears, 
and  the  whole  external  hope  of  a  future  upon  earth 
also  sinks  out  of  sight.  Take  any  parable  you 
please — that  of  the  Sower,  or  that  of  the  Pearl  of 
Great  Price,  or  that  of  the  Treasure  hidden  in  the 
Field — and  you  perceive  that  the  Word  of  God,  or 
rather  God  Himself,  is  the  kingdom  ;  and  what  you 
are  reading  about  is  not  angels  or  devils,  thrones 
or  principalities,  but  God  and  the  soul,  the  soul  and 
its  God.”  * 

These  eloquent  observations  ought  to  do  some¬ 
thing  to  divert  the  young  theologians  of  Professor 
Harnack’s  country,  who  are  at  present  turning  their 
zeal  so  earnestly  to  the  study  of  the  words  of  Christ, 
from  divagations  into  paths  where  there  is  no 
thoroughfare.  The  hint  is  a  wise  one  that  it  is  in 
His  teaching  about  the  individual  that  the  essence 
of  our  Lord's  preaching  even  on  the  subject  of  the 
kingdom  is  to  be  found.  Some  of  our  own  scholars 
at  present,  in  their  eagerness  to  find  in  the  teaching 
of  Jesus  a  justification  for  the  social  ideas  by  which 
they  are  themselves  possessed,  have  represented  His 
originality  as  consisting  in  the  deliverance  of  man¬ 
kind  from  an  individual  and  selfish  view  of  religion 
through  the  introduction  of  a  religion  of  brotherhood 
and  common  endeavour.  But  such  a  representation 
can  only  be  made  through  oblivion  of  the  facts  of 
the  case.  The  conception  of  religion  as  a  corporate 


*  From  the  close  of  the  Third  Lecture. 


28 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


impulse,  so  far  from  being  a  discovery  of  Jesus,  was 
common  to  the  whole  ancient  world.  It  is  specially 
the  view  of  the  Old  Testament,  in  which  both  the 
reproofs  and  the  promises  of  the  prophets  are,  as 
a  rule,  addressed  not  to  the  individual  but  to  the 
nation  at  large  ;  and  only  slowly  and  dimly,  as  the 
Book  is  drawing  to  its  close,  does  the  idea  emerge 
that  the  individual  is  capable  of  a  personal  relation 
to  God.  In  next  chapter  we  shall  see  that  in  the 
great  conception  of  the  kingdom  of  God  the  social 
aspect  of  religion  is  acknowledged  ;  but  the  origin¬ 
ality  of  Christ  consisted  not  in  emphasizing  this, 
but  in  seizing  on  the  emergent  notion  of  the  dignity 
and  value  of  the  individual  soul  and  elevating  it 
to  the  forefront  ;  so  that  preachers  are  not  going 
back  to  Christ,  but  going  back  beyond  Him,  to  a 
pre-Christian  stage  of  religion,  if,  instead  of  r  Magni¬ 
fying  the  individual  and  straining  every  nerve  for 
his  salvation,  they  wander  away  to  the  social  or 
ecclesiastical  organism,  making  this  their  principal 
care  and  the  leading  element  of  their  testimony. 

Professor  Harnack’s  pronouncement,  just  quoted, 
may  be  looked  upon  as  the  summing-up  of  a  con¬ 
troversy  as  to  the  nature  of  the  kingdom  spoken  of 
by  Jesus  which  has  been  raging  for  several  years; 
and  the  conclusion  seems  to  be  that,  amidst  all  the 
variety  and  picturesqueness  of  the  sayings  in  the 
Gospels  on  the  subject,  the  deepest  and  most  sig¬ 
nificant  element  is  not  that  which  is  coloured  with 


THE  GOSPEL  OR  BLESSEDNESS 


29 


local  and  temporary  allusions,  but  that  which  is  more 
interior  and  out  of  time.  Of  such  perhaps  the  most 
remarkable  of  all  is  the  saying :  “  The  kingdom  of 
God  is  within  you.”  It  is  true,  the  translation  is 
disputed :  the  words  rendered  “  within  you  ”  *  may 
possibly  mean  “  among  you.”  But  the  whole  context 
leads  up  to  the  more  solemn  meaning.  Jesus  was 
asked  by  the  Pharisees  when  the  kingdom  should 
come ;  to  which  He  replied,  “  The  kingdom  of  God 
cometh  not  with  observation.”  The  last  word  j  is 
an  astronomical  term,  suggesting  that  those  who  had 
questioned  Him  expected  to  see  the  kingdom  come 
in  the  very  way  in  which  some  at  the  present  day 
assume  He  was  always  expecting  it  Himself — that  is, 
descending  in  bodily  shape  from  the  sky.  But  this 
He  absolutely  denies,  going  on  to  add,  “  Neither  shall 
they  say,  Lo  here,  or,  Lo  there.”  It  is  not  to  be  c 
sensational  spectacle.  “  P'or,  behold,”  He  concludes 
“  the  kingdom  of  God  is  within  you.”  Surely  thi< 
means  that  it  is  a  thing  of  the  heart,  hidden  away 
from  all  observation — a  secret  blessedness,  known 
\  only  to  him  who  has  received  it  and  to  God.J 


*  ei/TOS  Vp.U)V. 

t  TrapaTiiprjcris. 

f  The  rendering  “within  you”  is  confirmed  by  one  of  the 
logia  recovered  by  Messrs.  Grenfell  and  Hunt:  “Jesus  saith, 
(Ye  ask,  Who  are  these)  that  draw  us  (to  the  kingdom,  if)  the 
kingdom  is  in  heaven  ?  .  .  .  the  fowls  of  the  air,  and  all  beasts 
that  are  under  the  earth  or  upon  the  earth,  and  the  fishes 
of  the  sea  (these  are  they  which  draw)  you,  and  the  kingdom 


30 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


With  this  agrees  well  the  parable  of  the  kingdom 
which  the  late  Dr.  Bruce  used  to  consider  the  most 
beautiful  of  all  our  Saviour’s  sayings  on  this  subject, 

i 

“So  is  the  kingdom  of  God  as  if  a  man  should  cast 
seed  into  the  ground,  and  should  sleep,  and  rise  night 
and  day,  and  the  seed  should  spring  and  grow  up, 
he  knoweth  not  how ;  for  the  earth  bringeth  forth 
fruit  of  herself,  first  the  blade,  then  the  ear,  after  that 
the  full  corn  in  the  ear.”  This  exquisite  picture  of 
a  seed  unfolding  slowly  and  unobserved,  but  surely 
and  prosperously,  till  it  attains  to  ripeness  and  per¬ 
fection,  is  not  a  description  of  a  political  development, 
but  of  the  interior  life  in  its  most  sacred  aspects. 
Harnack’s  observation,  that  it  is  in  the  parables  that 
the  true  genius  of  the  kingdom  announced  by  Jesus 
is  to  be  discovered,  is  a  happy  one  ;  and  what  these 
specially  suggest,  as  they  are  read  over  one  by  one, 
is,  that  Jesus  meant  by  the  kingdom  a  spiritual 
principle,  secretly  and  firmly  seizing  the  soul,  and 
pervading  it  slowly  but  increasingly  as  a  leaven,  till 
it  has  leavened  the  whole  lump ;  it  is  a  spiritual 
discovery,  which  fills  the  soul  with  joy,  and  causes 
every  sacrifice  to  appear  cheap,  if  only  the  matchless 
prize  can  be  secured.  In  short,  it  is  “the  Gospel.” 


of  heaven  is  within  you  ( evros  v/xav) ;  and  whoever  shall  know 
himself  shall  find  it.  (Strive  therefore)  to  know  yourselves, 
and  ye  shall  be  aware  that  ye  are  the  sons  of  the  (almighty) 
Father;  (and)  ye  shall  know  that  ye  are  in  (the  city  of  God), 
and  we  are  (the  city).” 


THE  GOSPEL  OR  BLESSEDNESS 


3i 


In  harmony  with  the  foregoing  argument  is  the 
fact  that  another  great  inaugural  word  of  the 
preaching  of  Jesus  was  Blessedness — the  very  term 
by  which  an  interior  joy  would  most  naturally  be 
described.  It  was  with  this  keynote  He  commenced 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount ;  and  not  only  did  He 
prefix  it  to  that  grand  utterance,  but  He  made  it 
ring  out  no  fewer  than  eight  times,  eliciting  the 
entire  octave  of  its  music. 

The  drift  of  the  Beatitudes  has  often  been  mis¬ 
understood.  They  have  been  supposed  to  describe 
the  characteristics  of  true  Christians,  pronouncing 
those  blessed  who  possess  such-and-such  qualities. 
But  the  structure  is  much  more  complex.  The 
justification  of  the  predicate  “blessed”  lies  not  in 
the  possession  of  a  certain  character,  but  in  the 
consequences  proceeding  therefrom  and  indicated  in 
each  beatitude  by  a  subordinate  clause  introduced 
by  “for.”  In  some  cases  the  statement  of  the  beati¬ 
tude  would  be  a  violent  paradox  without  this  addition. 
For  example,  one  of  the  Beatitudes  says,  “  Blessed 
are  they  that  mourn  ” ;  and,  if  we  stop  there,  the 
statement  is  almost  equivalent  to  the  absurd  saying, 
“  Happy  are  the  unhappy.”  The  addition,  however, 
of  the  words,  “  for  they  shall  be  comforted,”  makes  all 
the  difference.  The  blessedness  consists  not  in 
mourning,  but  in  being  comforted  ;  at  any  rate  it 
consists  not  only  in  mourning,  but  also  in  being 
comforted.  And  the  same  principle  applies  to  all 


32 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


the  Beatitudes.  Each  of  them  is  an  equation,  on 
i  he  one  side  of  which  stands  “  blessed,”  while  on  the 
other  there  are  two  quantities — tne  one  a  character 
or  condition,  and  the  other  a  gift  to  be  given  io 
those  who  are  found  in  this  condition.  In  several 
cases  the  condition  is  a  minus  quantity — that  is  to 
say,  the  character  alone  would  be  the  reverse  of 
blessed — but  /the  gift  introduced  by  “  for,”  is  a 
magnitude  so  great  that,  when  both  are  united,  the 
minus  disappears,  and  only  a  substantial  plus  is 
visible.  Thus,  mourning,  hungering,  persecution  are 
not  in  themselves  and  by  themselves  desirable,  but 
the  reverse  ;  yet,-  taken  along  with  what  is  given  by 
Jesus  to  those  thus  circumstanced,  they  are  blessed¬ 
ness  itself. 

The  gifts  thus  specified  will  enable  us  in  some 
degree  to  fill  up  our  Lord’s  conception  of  Blessedness. 

One  of  them  is  mercy.  “  Blessed  are  the  merciful, 
for  they  shall  obtain  mercy.”  No  claim  of  Jesus  in 
the  days  of  His  flesh  was  more  characteristic  than 
the  assertion  that  He  had  power  to  forgive  sins. 
This  must  be,  for  all,  the  initial  blessing  of  the 
kingdom. 

Another  of  the  Beatitudes  says,  “  Blessed  are  the 
pure  in  heart,  for  they  shall  see  God.”  To  “see 
God  ”  is  a  well  known  Old  Testament  expression  ; 
it  is  a  metaphor  borrowed  from  Oriental  courts, 
where  access  to  the  sovereign  was  deemed  a  precious 
privilege,  while  to  approach  without  permission  might 


THE  GOSPEL  OR  BLESSEDNESS 


33 


involve  even  loss  of  life.  This  etiquette  of  royalty 
was  transferred  to  God,  who  was  conceived  as  a  great 
King,  dwelling  in  a  palace  so  brilliant  as  to  be  dark 
with  excess  of  light,  where  He  was  surrounded  with 
an  innumerable  bodyguard  of  angels  and  archangels, 
which  mortals  were  not  permitted  to  pass.  But  to 
receive  such  permission  would  be  felicity  ;  and  so  the 
Hebrew  poets  sang,  “  Who  shall  ascend  to  the  hill 
of  the  Lord,  and  who  shall  stand  in  His  holy  place  ?  ” 
The  mind  of  Jesus,  being  steeped  in  such  imagery, 
clothed  in  this  form  the  thought  which,  imagery 
apart,  is  a  promise  of  complete  access  to  God.  To 
be  in  the  kingdom  of  God  is  not  only  to  obtain 
mercy,  as  even  a  criminal  might,  but  to  have  com¬ 
munion  with  God  and  to  enjoy  His  society. 

This  is  expressed  in  a  style  still  more  tender  in 
another  of  these  Beatitudes,  which  says,  “  Blessed  are 
the  peacemakers,  for  they  shall  be  called  the  children 
of  God.”  To  “see  God”  is  the  privilege  of  a  courtier, 
but  a  child  is  in  the  house  forever.  This  was  the 
very  name  under  which  the  consciousness  possessed 
by  Jesus  of  His  own  relation  to  God  was  expressed  : 
He  was,  according  to  His  own  frequent  statements, 
“  the  Son.”  And  those  who  receive  the  kingdom 
are  in  a  real  sense  the  sons  of  God  and  the  brethren 
of  Jesus. 

These  elements  of  blessedness  are  lofty ;  but  are 
they  not  too  lofty  ?  Does  not  the  happiness  of 
ordinary  humanity  depend,  at  least  in  some  degree, 

3 


34 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


on  conditions  more  sublunary  and  prosaic  ?  Certainly 
it  does  ;  and,  therefore,  we  are  glad  to  find  among 
the  Beatitudes  one  at  least  which  touches  the  ground  : 
“  Blessed  are  the  meek,  for  they  shall  inherit  the 
earth.”  In  its  form  this  recalls  the  promise  of 
Canaan  to  ancient  Israel  ;  and,  in  fact,  it  is  a 
verbatim  quotation  from  one  of  the  Psalms.  But 
obviously  it  has  a  wider  and  more  human  scope, 
applying  to  the  whole  world,  and  not  only  to  the 
Holy  Land.  At  first  sight,  indeed,  it  seems  a 
paradox  ;  for  is  it  not,  on  the  contrary,  the  prero¬ 
gative  of  the  proud  and  the  ambitious  to  inherit  the 
world  ?  So  it  may  seem  ;  yet  there  are  not  lacking 
instances,  which  will  occur  to  everyone,  tending  to 
prove  that,  after  the  conqueror  and  oppressor  has 
stormed  out  his  little  day,  those  whom  he  has  over¬ 
looked  or  trodden  underfoot  may  appear  on  the 
scene  and  take  possession  of  his  conquests.  This, 
at  any  rate,  is  a  promise  that  those  who  are  fighting 
on  the  side  of  righteousness  shall  not  lack  the  footing 
they  require  to  deliver  their  blows,  and  that  those 
whose  hearts  are  set  on  the  extension  of  the  kingdom 
of  God  shall  have  room  and  verge  enough  in  a  world 
of  which  God  is  the  Author  and  Governor. 

There  are  some  of  the  gifts  mentioned  in  the 
Beatitudes  which  may  be  passed  by  at  this  stage, 
because  they  will  come  up  for  notice  more  appro¬ 
priately  at  a  later  stage ;  but  the  last  beatitude  of 
all — “Blessed  are  ye  when  men  shall  revile  you  and 


THE  GOSPEL  OR  BLESSEDNESS 


35 


persecute  you,  and  shall  say  all  manner  of  evil 
against  you  falsely  for  My  sake ;  rejoice  and  be 
exceeding  glad,  for  great  is  your  reward  in  heaven  ” — 
brings  out  the  most  important  feature  of  all  in  the 
blessedness  promised  by  Jesus — namely,  that  it  will 
be  experienced  not  only  in  this  world,  but  in  the 
next — perhaps  one  ought  to  say,  not  in  this  world, 
but  the  next,  or  at  least,  more  in  the  next  than  in 
this  world. 

Jesus  refers  often  to  this  everlasting  nature  of  the 
blessedness  He  gives,  and  always  with  decision  and 
enthusiasm.  Herein  lies  one  of  the  grand  contrasts 
between  Him  and  the  teachers  who  went  before  Him, 
not  only  among  the  heathen  but  even  among  the 
Jews.  In  the  Old  Testament  there  is  many  a  gloomy 
page  where  death  seems  to  be  spoken  of  as  the  end 
of  everything,  while  the  indications  of  an  opposite 
description  are  few  and  far  between.  Still  there  are 
in  the  Old  Testament  at  least  the  germs  of  an 
immortal  hope ;  and  these  would  appear  to  have 
ripened  in  the  interval  between  the  Old  Testament 
and  the  New,  as  the  literary  remains  of  that  period 
testify.  Yet  it  is  not  likely  that  it  was  from  this 
source  that  Jesus  derived  His  faith  in  this  mystery, 
eagerly  as  we  may  believe  Him  to  have  perused  any 
such  hints  accessible  to  Him.  His  doctrine  on  this 
subject  is  all  His  own.  It  is  too  fresh  and  original 
to  have  been  obtained  second-hand.  He  speaks  as 
.one  who  has  beep  there ;  and  the  statement  of  the 


36 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


New  Testament  is  literally  true,  that  He  brought  life 
and  immortality  to  light  by  the  Gospel. 

He  represents  heaven  as  a  place  where  the 
development  of  His  followers  will  attain  to  perfection, 
and  all  their  present  sufferings  will  receive  ample 
compensation.  This  notion  of  “  reward  ”  *  He  in¬ 
troduces  again  and  again,  constraining  His  hearers 
to  embrace  .His  cause,  with  all  its  privations  and 
disadvantages,  because  of  the  compensations  which 
the  future  will  bring.  He  does  not  even  scruple 
to  throw  into  the  picture  a  dash  of  material  felicity, 
speaking  of  the  drinking  of  wine  in  the  kingdom,  while 
He  adopts  warmly  the  belief  in  a  bodily  resurrection. 
But  the  false  colours  of  a  Mohammedan  paradise  are 
altogether  avoided.  The  children  of  the  resurrection 


*  Not  a  few  authors  have  been  exercised  about  the  frequent 
employment  by  Jesus  of  the  notion  of  “  reward,”  lest  this  should 
betray  an  appeal  to  an  inferior  level  of  motive.  Even  an  entire 
book  on  the  subject  has  been  recently  published.  Jacoby 
( Neutestamentliche  Ethik )  discusses  the  difficulty  with  care, 
coming  to  the  conclusion  that  Jesus,  finding  the  idea  prevalent 
in  Jewish  thought,  made  use  of  it,  yet  in  such  a  way  as  to 
abolish  it.  “While  Jesus  employs  the  analogy  of  a  work- 
engagement  in  which  performance  and  reward  correspond,  yet 
He  at  the  same  time  destroys  the  analogy  by  transforming  the 
reward  into  a  gift  of  love,  which  transcends  the  claims  that 
can  be  raised  by  the  worker’’ — p.  51.  Perhaps,  however,  such 
apologists  are  unnecessarily  anxious.  Jesus  regarded  Himself 
as  the  Guide  to  the  blessed  life ;  and  I  am  specially  partial 
to  the  work  of  Titius,  who  treats  the  whole  of  the  New 
Testament  teaching,  that  of  Jesus  included,  under  the  point 
of  view  of  Blessedness — Die  neutestamentliche  Lehre  von 
der  Seligkeit  und  Hire  Bedeutung  fur  die  Gegenwart% 


THE  GOSPEL  OR  BLESSEDNESS 


37 


will  neither  marry  nor  be  given  in  marriage,  but  will 
be  as  the  angels  of  God.  The  feature  on  which  He 
expatiates  with  most  frequency  is  the  enjoyment  of 
the  company  of  the  great  and  good  of  former  ages. 
He  will  be  there  Himself,  in  glory,  to  welcome  those 
who  have  confessed  Him  on  earth  into  everlasting 
habitations  ;  and  God  Himself — who  constantly 
appears  in  the  discourses  of  Jesus  as  the  Father  “who 
is  in  heaven  ” — will,  be  there,  as  the  Alpha  and  the 
Omega  of  all  blessedness. 

When,  in  the  ancient  world,  the  question  was  asked, 
What  is  the  chief  end  of  man  or  the  highest  good  ? 
the  answer  to  it  was  practically  unanimous — that  it 
is  happiness.  “  Since  all  knowledge  and  all  purpose,” 
says  Aristotle,  “  aim  at  some  good,  what  is  the  highest 
of  all  realisable  goods  ?  As  to  its  name,  I  suppose, 
nearly  all  men  are  agreed,  for  the  masses  and  the 
men  of  culture  alike  declare  that  it  is  happiness.”  * 
Against  this,  indeed,  the  Stoics  in  the  ancient  world 
protested  ;  and  some  have  protested  in  modern  times 
— Carlyle,  for  example,  who  was  never  tired  of  pour¬ 
ing  scorn  on  this  idea.  To  him  the  motion,  taken  for 
granted,  as  he  would  have  said,  in  every  foolish  brain, 
that  anyone  needs  to  be  happy,  or  has  any  natural 
right  to  happiness,  is  the  most  colossal  of  all  blunders. 
Men  are  miserable,  he  argued,  because  they  entertain 
exorbitant  notions  of  their  own  deserts,  and  they 


*  Nico?nachean  Ethics ,  i.  4. 


38 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


are  astonished  when  nature  does  not  agree  with  them. 
But  let  them  take  it  for  granted  that  they  deserve 
nothing,  and  then  they  will  be  delighted  with  the 
slightest  enjoyments.  “  Fancy,”  says  he,  “  thou 
deservest  to  be  hanged  (as  is  most  likely),  thou  wilt 
feel  it  happiness  to  be  only  shot ;  fancy  thou  deservest 
to  be  hanged  in  a  hair-halter,  it  will  be  a  luxury 
to  die  in  hemp.”*  At  the  time  when  such  senti¬ 
ments  were  expressed  by  the  sardonic  philosopher, 
there  was  good  reason  for  them  in  the  condition  of 
philosophy  and  the  tendencies  of  the  public  mind. 
But  the  desire  for  happiness  is  too  deep-seated  and 
truly  natural  to  be  argued  away  by  any  eloquence. 
Jesus,  ever  true  to  nature,  acknowledged  this  as  one 
o i  the  primordial  forces  of  our  being,  and  endeavoured 
to  enlist  it  among  the  motives  of  goodness.  Only 
lie  employed  the  word  “  blessed  ”  in  the  place 
of  “  happy  ” — a  simple  yet  a  radical  change  ;  for 
blessedness  is  a  happiness  pure  and  spiritual,  reaching 
down  to  the  profoundest  elements  of  human  nature 
and  reaching  forth  to  the  illimitable  developments  of 
eternity. 


*  Sartor  Resartus ,  ii.  9 ;  Past  and  Present,  iii.  4 ;  and,  indeed, 
his  works  passim. 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD 


Matt.  iv.  17,  23;  v.  3,  10,  19,  20;  vi.  10,  33;  vii.  21;  viii.  11, 
12;  ix.  35,  x.  7  ;  xi.  11,  12;  xii.  28;  xiii.  II,  19,  24,  31,  33, 
38,  41,  43,  44,  45,  47,  52;  xvi.  19,  28;  xviii.  I,  3,  4,  23;  xix. 
12,  14,  23,  24  ;  xx.  1  ;  xxi.  31,  43  ;  xxii.  2  ;  xxiii.  13  ;  xxiv.  14  ; 
xxv.  1,  34 ;  xx  vi.  29. 

Mark  i.  14,  15;  iv.  11,  26,  30;  ix.  1,47;  x.  14,  15,  23,  24,  25; 
xii.  34  ;  xiv.  25  ;  xv.  43. 

Luke  iv.  43  ;  vi.  20  ;  vii.  28  ;  viii.  1,  10;  ix.  2,  11,  27,  60,  62  ;  x.  9, 
II  ;  xi.  2,  17,  20  ;  xii.  31,  32  ;  xiii.  20,  28,  29  ;  xiv.  15  ;  xvi.  16  ; 
xvii.  20,  21  ;  xviii.  16,  17,  24,  25,  29;  xxi.  31  ;  xxii.  1 6,  18,  29, 
30;  xxiii.  51. 

Matt.  v.  12;  vi.  1,  4,  9,  10,  20;  x.  41,  42;  xiii.  30;  xviii.  10; 
xix.  21,  28-30  ;  xx.  23  ;  xxii.  30-32  ;  xxiv.  31  ;  xxv.  21,  23,  46. 

Mark  viii.  35  ;  ix.  41,  43,  45  ;  x.  17-31  ;  xii.  25. 

Luke  vi.  23;  x.  20;  xii.  33,  37;  xiv.  14;  xv.  7,  10 ;  xvi.  9,  22; 
xviii.  22,  30  ;  xx.  34-38 ;  xxiii.  43. 


CHAPTER  III. 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD 

IN  the  foregoing  chapter  attention  was  drawn  to 
the  fact  that  the  blessedness  promised  in  the 
Beatitudes  is  defined  in  the  reason  annexed  to  each 
of  them  and  introduced  by  the  conjunction  “for.” 
Of  these  reasons  the  first  is  in  the  words,  “  For  theirs 
is  the  kingdom  of  heaven,”  and  the  eighth  is  in 
exactly  the  same  words,  as  if,  having  sounded  all  the 
chords  of  happiness,  the  discourse  had  nothing  left 
but  to  repeat  the  keynote.  This  is  a  remarkable 
confirmation  of  what  has  been  already  said  about  the 
prominence  of  “  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ”  in  the 
teaching  of  Jesus.* 

This  prominence  may  cause  surprise  for  several 
reasons — first,  because  the  phrase  was  not  of  His 
own  invention.  It  was  employed  before  Him  by 
John  the  Baptist,  one  of  the  notes  of  whose  message 
was,  “  The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand.”  Even  he, 
however,  was  not  the  originator.  Those  who  dig  in 
the  literary  remains  of  the  period  between  the  Old 

*  It  remarkably  confirms  also  what  was  said  of  the  subordi¬ 
nation  of  "  the  kingdom  ”  to  “  the  Gospel.” 


41 


42 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


Testament  and  the  New  find  it  there  ;  so  that  it  was 
part  of  the  religious  language  of  the  day,  which  Jesus, 
as  a  child  of  His  time  and  country,  inherited.  This 
encourages  us  to  inquire  if  it  can  be  traced  farther 
back  in  the  Old  Testament ;  and,  when  we  search, 
we  have  not  far  to  look ;  because  in  the  Book  of 
Daniel  we  read  that  the  great  world-kingdoms,  which 
the  prophet  saw  in  vision,  were  to  be  superseded  by 
what  he  expressly  called  “  the  kingdom  of  God  ” ; 
and,  in  his  famous  prophecy  of  the  Son  of  Man,  it  is 
written,  “  There  shall  be  given  unto  Him  dominion, 
glory,  and  a  kingdom  ;  and  all  peoples,  nations,  and 
languages  shall  serve  Him  ;  His  dominion  is  an  ever¬ 
lasting  dominion  which  shall  not  pass  away,  and  His 
kingdom  that  which  shall  not  be  destroyed.”  *  In¬ 
deed,  when  thus  we  embark  on  the  Old  Testament 
Scriptures,  a  vast  field  of  inquiry  opens  out  before 
us.  We  soon  realise  that  the  entire  history  of  the 
people  of  God  in  that  dispensation  was  founded  on 
the  conception  of  a  kingdom  of  God.  This  was  the 
ideal  which  had  been  given  to  the  Hebrews  by 
Moses,  and  their  whole  actual  history  had  been  a 
compromise  between  this  vision  and  reality.  When 
they  first  demanded  a  king,  that  they  might  be  like 
the  other  nations,  they  were  told  that  God  was  their 
king,  and  that  they  ought  to  desire  no  other.  In  the 
centuries  that  followed,  the  history  of  the  monarchy 
in  Israel  was  far  from  affording  clear  proof  that  the 


*  Daniel  vii.  13-27. 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD 


43 


compromise  had  been  effectual.  And,  deep  down  in 
the  heart  of  the  more  spiritual  elements  of  the  nation, 
the  primeval  idea  lingered,  receiving  glowing  expres¬ 
sion  in  the  writings  of  the  prophets.  At  length  the 
earthly  monarchy  perished,  and  the  nation  was  led 
away  into  exile,  but  in  the  gloom  of  captivity  the 
ancient  hope  shone  out  again.  Although  the  earthly 
monarchy  was  lost,  all  was  not  lost.  If  only  God 
would  take  to  Himself  His  great  power  and  reign, 
the  glory  of  the  future  might  far  excel  the  past.  The 
return  from  Babylon  was  a  marvellous  intervention 
of  Providence,  which  showed  that  Jehovah  had  still 
in  reserve  for  His  people  a  future  and  a  hope.  The 
restored  state,  however,  proved  to  be  only  a  day  of 
small  things.  This  was  not  the  kingdom  of  God  of 
which  the  prophets  had  spoken  and  for  which  the 
pious  had  sighed.  And,  as  the  generations  went  on, 
things  grew  worse  instead  of  better.  The  noble 
effort  of  the  Maccabees  was  exhausted  ;  Herod,  an 
alien,  was  on  the  throne  ;  and  the  Romans,  with  their 
irresistible  force,  were  in  the  background.  In  all 
patriotic  hearts  smouldered  the  fires  of  discontent 
and  indignation.  Yet  hope  was  not  extinct.  At 
length  John  the  Baptist  appeared,  proclaiming  not 
only  that  the  kingdom  of  heaven  was  at  hand,  but 
that,  after  himself,  was  coming  One  the  latchet  of 
whose  shoes  he  was  not  worthy  to  unloose  ;  and  the 
question  sent  by  John  from  the  prison  to  Jesus, 
“Art  thou  He  that  should  come,  or  do  we  look  for 


44 


THE  ETHIC  OF  J ESUS 


another  ?  ”  undoubtedly  embodied  the  state  of  mind 
of  many  besides  himself. 

A  second  reason  for  surprise  at  the  prominence 
of  this  phrase  in  the  teaching  of  Christ  is  the  fact 
that  it  was  not  destined  to  maintain  this  position 
in  the  teaching  of  Christianity.  While  it  'is  very 
frequent  in  the  Gospels,  in  the  reports  of  Christ’s 
own  words,  it  is  infrequent  in  the  other  books  of 
the  New  Testament,  and  in  some  of  these  it  does 
not  appear  at  all.  This  has  been  quoted  as  evidence 
that  the  doctrine  of  Christianity  is  very  different 
from  that  of  Christ ;  but  it  may  simply  mean  that 
new  and  perhaps  more  appropriate  language  had 
unconsciously  been  found  for  ideas  essentially  the 
same.  The  Apostolic  Age  was  too  much  alive  to 
be  the  slave  of  phraseology,  even  if  this  were  the 
phraseology  of  its  Master.  When  the  apostles  went  r 
forth  into  the  heathen  world,  then  practically  con¬ 
terminous  with  the  Roman  Empire,  it  is  easy  to 
understand  that  they  could  not  speak  much  of  a 
kingdom,  because  such  language  would  have  been 
interpreted  as  treason  against  Caesar.  “  The  king¬ 
dom  ”  was  an  essentially  Jewish  idea;  and,  when' 
the  Jewish  state  had  ceased  to  exist,  the  phrase 
was  dropped  as  a  matter  of  course.  Since  then 
attempts  have  from  time  to  time  been  made  to 
revive  it.  The  Pietists,  for  example,  of  Germany, 
in  the  eighteenth  century,  loved  to  speak  of  work 
for  the  kingdom  of  God,  instead  of  for  the  Church 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD 


45 


or  for  Christianity  ;  and,  strange  to  say,  the  bitterest 
opponents  of  Pietism,  Ritschl  and  his  followers,  in 
the  nineteenth  century,  have  endeavoured  to  re¬ 
introduce  it  as  the  highest  category  of  theology.* 
I  have  not  observed  whether  in  America  this  has 
commanded  much  assent  ;  but  there  are  not  wanting 
in  Great  Britain  scholars  who  have  signified  their 
agreement.  I  question,  however,  whether  “  the 
kingdom  of  God  ”  is  likely  again  to  come  into 
general  use  as  the  name  for  Christianity.  To  the 
common  ear  it  has  a  forced  and  foreign  sound. 
Kings  and  kingdoms  do  not  appeal  to  the  modern 
as  they  did  to  the  ancient  mind,  some  of  the  most 
advanced  modern  nations  being  republican.  Still, 
as  having  been  the  favourite  term  used  by  our  Lord 
for  His  own  cause,  it  will  always  have  a  certain 
attraction  for  the  Christian  mind  ;  and  its  use  in 
two  familiar  sayings  will  always  prevent  it  from 
becoming  obsolete — the  petition  in  the  Lord’s  Prayer 
which  makes  us  say,  “  Thy  kingdom  come,”  and  the 
sacred  word  about  the  little  children,  “  Of  such  is 
the  kingdom  of  heaven.” 

4  But  the  reason  which  most  of  all  makes  it  surprising 
that  Jesus  employed  this  term  for  the  highest  good 
is  that  it  brought  Him  into  conflict  with  the  ideas 


*  Johannes  Weiss  ( Die  Predigt  Jesu  vo?7i  Rciche  Gottes, 
p.  6 7),  while  claiming  that  this  phrase  is  the  real  watchword 
of  modern  theology,  yet  makes  the  acknowledgment  that  we 
understand  it  in  a  different  sense  from  Jesus. 


46 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


and  expectations  of  His  contemporaries  and  fellow- 
countrymen.  It  might  seem  to  have  been  in  accom¬ 
modation  to  these  that  He  made  use  of  the  phrase ; 
but  it  turned  out  that  under  this  name  they  and  He 
were  thinking  of  entirely  different  things.  The 
difference  between  them  may  perhaps  be  best 
expressed  by  saying  that  they  and  He  laid  the 
emphasis  on  different  members  of  the  phrase,  they 
placing  it  on  “the  kingdom,”  He  on  “of  God.”  It 
was  of  a  kingdom  they  were  thinking — that  is,  of 
emancipation  from  the  Romans,  of  a  palace  and 
a  court  of  their  own,  of  influence  and  predominance 
among  the  nations — He,  on  the  contrary,  was  thinking 
of  a  kingdom  “  of  God  ” — that  is,  of  God  being  more 
fully  revealed,  of  the  will  of  God  being  done  on 
earth  as  it  is  done  in  heaven.  None  can  read  the 
Gospels  attentively  without  sometimes  pitying  the 
Jews,  because  He  was-  so  different  from  the  Messiah 
they  were  expecting;  and  the  doubt  may  even 
insinuate  itself  into  a  sympathetic  mind,  whether  He 
was  justified  in  employing  language  about  a  kingdom 
of  God  which  they,  being  what  they  were,  could 
hardly  help  misunderstanding.  The  tragic  difference 
of  view  was  not  reconciled.  The  nation  was  groan¬ 
ing  under  the  chastisement  of  the  Almighty,  yet 
it  did  not  repent ;  instead  of  responding  to  the 
spiritual  appeals  of  Jesus,  it  remained  earthly  and 
ambitious.  He  was  only  a  reproach  to  it.  To 
practical  and  worldly  minds  He  appeared  a  visionary  ; 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD 


47 


and  a  great  resentment  and  hatred  invaded  their 
hearts  at  the  thought  that  such  an  one  should 
presume  to  call  himself  their  Messiah  ;  for  this 
seemed  to  them  to  be  casting  ridicule  on  a  sublime 
and  sacred  idea.  This  dreamer  would  never  be  able 
to  bring  to  them  the  prizes  for  which  they  were 
sighing,  and  it  angered  them  that  He  should  pretend 
to  do  so.  Thus  it  was  that  the  catastrophe  was 
brought  about,  when  the  nation  nailed  Him  to  a  tree. 

The  stronger,  however,  the  reasons  against  the 
use  of  “  the  kingdom  of  God,”  as  the  usual  name 
for  the  highest  that  Christ  had  brought  to  the  world, 
the  more  certain  is  it  that  He  must  have  had  good 
reasons  for  making  use  of  this  term. 

First,  it  connected  His  teaching  with  the  tradition  of 
the  Old  Testament  and  the  past  history  of  the  people 
of  God.  Original  and  unique  as  Jesus  is,  He  is  never 
disconnected  from  the  nation  to  which  He  belonged. 
His  mind  is  saturated  with  the  ideas  of  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  ;  His  language  is  learned  from  its  phraseology  ; 
the  figures  of  the  patriarchs  and  the  pious  kings  occupy 
His  imagination  ;  and  He  knows  Himself  to  be  the 
successor  and  the  heir  of  the  prophets.  If  the  kingdom 
of  God  was  the  underlying  idea  of  the  whole  Old 
Testament  history,  this  was  the  best  reason  for  its 
being  the  most  prominent  watchword  of  His  preaching. 

Secondly,  He  may  have  been  influenced  in  adopt¬ 
ing  this  phrase  by  the  home  in  which  He  was 


48 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


brought  up.  In  the  Jewish  society  of  His  time  there 
was  one  section  in  which  the  tradition  of  the  past 
was  cherished  in  peculiar  purity ;  its  members  are 
sometimes  designated  by  the  name  of  the  Prosde- 
chomenoi ,  which  simply  means  that  they  were  waiting 
for  the  kingdom  of  God.  To  this  section  belonged 
the  home  in  which  Jesus  was  born  and  brought 
up,  as  did  that  of  John  the  Baptist ;  and,  in  the 
songs  which  emanated  from  this  circle  in  the  era 
of  the  Advent  and  have  been  preserved  in  the 
commencement  of  St.  Luke’s  Gospel,  we  possess  a 
vivid  image  of  the  hopes  with  which  their  minds  were 
filled.  These  all  centred  in  the  kingdom^  of  God. 
Those  pious  souls  were  pining  and  praying  day  and 
night  over  the  degradation  of  their  country,  and 
watching  for  the  dawn  of  a  better  age,  to  which  they 
applied  this  name.  In  making  use  of  this  term  Jesus 
is  sometimes  spoken  of  as  accommodating  Himself 
to  the  ideas  of  His  time ;  but,  in  truth,  He  was 
employing  language  as  native  to  Himself  as  were 
the  syllables  He  prattled  at  His  mother’s  knee.* 

But,  thirdly,  the  reason  for  the  use  of  this  name  - 
must  be  sought  still  deeper  in  His  own  consciousness. 
He  knew  Himself  to  be  the  Messiah  of  His  people, 
under  whose  kingship  the  highest  good  of  man  was 
to  be  enjoyed.  It  is  true,  He  kept  back  this 
acknowledgment  for  a  time,  at  least  in  certain  circles, 

*  Compare  especially  the  angel  Gabriel’s  words  to  Mary, 
Luke  i.  32,  33. 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD 


49 


mainly  because  of  the  contrast  already  spoken  of 
between  that  which  He  intended  by  the  name 
Messiah  and  the  views  entertained  by  His  contem¬ 
poraries  ;  but,  when  His  disciples  at  Caesarea  Philippi 
acknowledged  Him  to  be  the  Christ,  He  made  it 
perfectly  manifest  that  Pie  accepted  the  title ;  and, 
before  the  end  came,  He  testified  to  the  entire  nation, 
by  His  triumphal  entry  into  Jerusalem,  what  the 
claim  was  which  He  was  making.  It  is  difficult  to 
avoid  sometimes  asking  what  would  have  happened 
if  this  claim  had  been  conceded  and  the  Jewish 
nation  had  heartily  accepted  Him  as  its  Messiah. 
Would  He  have  ascended  the  throne  of  the  country 
and  thence  ruled  the  world?  To  such  a  question 
there  is  of  course  no  answer ;  for  the  human  mind 
is  unequal  to  the  task  of  saying  what  would  have 
happened  had  things  fallen  out  differently  from  their 
actual  course.  But  surely  we  may  say  that  the 
world  missed  an  incomparable  splendour  when,  instead 
of  hailing  Jesus  of  Nazareth  as  king  of  the  Jews,  the 
inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  cried  out,  “Crucify  Him.” 

As  early  as  the  Temptation  in  the  Wilderness, 
as  has  been  shown  above,  He  had  had  to  face 
the  alternative  of  a  vast  external  kingdom  without 
interior  reality  and  a  small  kingdom  with  genuine 
power  ;  and  He  had — not,  indeed,  without  a  struggle, 
yet  decisively  and  irrevocably — chosen  the  latter. 
The  Jewish  people  adhered  to  their  own  conception 
of  the  kingdom  of  God,  working  it  out  till  it  issued 

4 


50 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


in  His  crucifixion  ;  but  no  less  resolutely  did  Jesus 
adhere  to  His  own  conception,  working  it  out  in  the 
choice  and  training  of  His  followers.  Of  these  there 
were  but  twelve  ;  and  at  His  death  the  circle  had 
only  extended  to  five  hundred  ;  but  these  proved 
to  be  the  nucleus  of  a  kingdom  destined  to  become 
worldwide ;  and  in  them  His  own  conception  of  what 
the  kingdom  of  God  should  be  was  actually  fulfilled. 

This  is  one  aspect  of  the  royalty  of  Jesus  ;  but 
there  is  another  still  more  significant.  That  which, 
from  one  point  of  view,  was  the  hostile  will  of  His 
infatuated  fellow-countrymen  was,  from  another,  the 
will  of  Heaven,  and  Jesus  accepted  it  as  such.  We 
cannot  think  of  it  but  as  a  cruel  disappointment  to 
Him  when  the  current  of  events  bore  Him  away 
from  the  goal  towards  which  He  was  striving  ;  but, 
just  because  it  was  at  the  same  time  the  current  of 
Providence,  it  bore  Him  to  a  goal  infinitely  more 
desirable  than  that  which  He  had  missed.  And  so 
Jesus  remains  forever  the  supreme  illustration  of  that 
faith  in  Providence  which  He  recommended  to  others. 
Like  one  blind,  He  was  led  by  a  way  which  He  knew 
not ;  but  it  was  into  a  wealthy  place.  He  missed 
being  King  of  the  Jews,  in  order  that  He  might  be 
the  King  of  kings  and  the  Lord  of  lords* 

*  This  development  in  the  destinies  of  Jesus  was  to  change 
all  the  thoughts  of  His  disciples  about  Him  and,  consequently, 
to  alter  the  nomenclature  in  which  these  were  expressed ;  but, 
how  far  a  similar  transformation  may  have  passed  over  His  own 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD 


5i 


It  is  now,  however,  high  time  to  be  asking  what 
are  the  permanent  elements  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus 
about  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  what  message  for 
ourselves  it  still  contains ;  for,  even  if  we  do  not 
think  it  necessary  to  adopt  the  language  of  Jesus, 
certainly  the  ideas  and  the  spirit  which  He  poured 
into  this  phrase  are  still  of  importance  for  us. 

First,  there  are  those  who  would  say  the  chief 
lesson  to  be  derived  by  us  from  this  phrase  is  what 
it  teaches  about  the  social  nature  of  Christianity — a 
kingdom  being  not  of  one,  but  of  many,  linked 
together  in  gradations  of  honour  and  mutual  helpful¬ 
ness.  Jesus,  they  say,  delivered  mankind  from  an 
individual  and  selfish  view  of  religion  and  introduced 
a  religion  of  brotherhood  and  common  endeavour. 
As,  however,  we  have  already  seen,  it  would  be  truer 
to  affirm  that  Jesus  stripped  religion  of  its  national 
character  and  made  it  individual.  Still,  to  say  so 
would  only  be  to  state  half  the  truth.  The  individu¬ 
ality  which  He  teaches  is  at  the  same  time 
universality ;  because  a  society  into  which  every 


circle  of  ideas,  as  He  entered  step  by  step  into  the  mystery  of 
Providence,  or  how  far  this  may  have  produced  any  change  in 
the  signification  for  His  own  mind  of  a  phrase  like  “  the  kingdom 
of  God,”  lies  probably  beyond  the  means  of  investigation 
supplied  to  us  in  the  Gospels.  We  are,  however,  safe  in 
affirming  that  “  the  kingdom  of  God”  was,  at  all  stages  of  His 
development,  whatever  these  may  have  been,  a  comprehensive 
expression  for  all  the  blessings  He  was  conscious  of  bringing 
either  to  the  chosen  people  or  to  the  human  race. 


52 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


individual  can  enter,  without  regard  to  age,  station 
or  race,  is  really  universal,  the  only  qualification 
consisting  in  that  which  is  common  to  all  men. 
Herein,  then,  consists  the  originality  of  Jesus  :  He 
stripped  religion  of  its  national  and  racial  character, 
making  it  individual,  in  order  that  thereby  it  might 
be  universal.  The  religion  of  Jesus  Christ  is,  in  the 
first  place,  a  .personal  experience,  a  secret  blessed¬ 
ness,  a  spiritual  discovery,  filling  the  soul  with  a  joy 

which  suffuses  life  with  colour  and  warmth  ;  and, 

_ 

then,  in  the  second  place,  it  is  a  glorious  brotherhood 
and  league  of  endeavour  and  victory. 

Another  idea  which  is  kept  fresh  by  this  phrase  is 
that  of  loyalty.  Kings  and  kingdoms  may  not  now, 
as  has  been  already  acknowledged,  bulk  as  largely 
as  they  once  did  in  the  thoughts  of  men  ;  but  loyalty 
is  an  indispensable  sentiment,  the  inspiration  of  all 
high  endeavour.  God  is  Himself  the  object  of  the 
loyalty  of  the  subjects  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  as 
the  very  language  implies  ;  but  the  sentiment  attaches 
itself  also  to  Christ.  Probably  the  fellow-countrymen 
of  Jesus  had  not  worked  very  fully  out  in  their  own 
minds  what  the  relation  to  God  of  the  Messiah  they 
were  expecting  was  to  be  ;  but  this  was,  in  fact,  the 
most  essential  of  all  questions,  as  their  own  past 
,  history  might  have  taught  them.  Why  had  all 
attempts  to  realise  the  kingdom  of  God  in  Israel 
failed?  Had  it  not  largely  been  because  the  earthly 
kings,  who  were  His  vicegerents,  were  not  near 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD 


53 


enough  to  Him  ?  If  there  was  a  good  king  like 
David  or  Hezekiah,  he  was  soon  snatched  away  by 
death,  and  his  successor  might  be  an  Ahab  or  a 
Manasseh.  The  prime  desideratum  for  such  a  king¬ 
dom  as  they  dreamed  of  was  a  King  who  should 
be  more  closely  related  to  God  and  whose  reign 
should  endure  forever.  In  Jesus  this  was  fulfilled  ; 
and  He  appealed  to  the  fact  when  He  assigned  as  a 
sufficient  reason  for  any  labour  or  sacrifice  which 
might  be  demanded  from  His  followers,  that  it  was 
done  or  borne  for  His  sake.  This  is  still  the  motive 
of  service  in  His  kingdom,  and  there  is  never  a  day 
that  dawns  but  it  proves  sufficient  to  inspire  acts  of 
virtue  and  heroism  eclipsing  all  Greek  and  Roman 
fame. 

Perhaps,  however,  the  most  important  idea  in  “  the 
kingdom  of  God  ”  is  indicated  by  Jesus  Himself, 
when,  in  the  Lord’s  Prayer,  He  expounds  the  peti¬ 
tion,  “  Thy  kingdom  come  ”  by  the  one  which  follows, 
“  Thy  will  be  done  on  earth  as  it  is  in  heaven.” 
Wherever,  in  a  nation  or  a  home  or  a  heart,  the  will 
of  God  is  done,  there  the  kingdom  of  God  exists  ; 
and  this  is  something  which  never  grows  old.  For 
the  will  of  God  Jesus  had  the  most  passionate  love, 
into  which  entered  all  the  feeling  He  had  for  His 
Father  in  heaven,  as  well  as  all  the  hope  He 
cherished  for  the  improvement  of  the  world.  When 
any  human  being  did  the  will  of  God,  Jesus  said, 

“  The  same  is  My  brother  and  sister  and  mother,” 


54 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


At  the  crisis  of  His  passion  in  Gethsemane,  the 
discords  of  His  soul  were  resolved  in  the  prayer,  “  Not 
My  will,  but  Thine,  be  done.”  Where  God’s  will  is 
done,  there  may,  for  the  moment,  be  suffering  and 
renunciation,  as  there  were  in  His  own  case,  but 
ultimately  there  must  be  success  and  happiness ; 
for  the  stars  in  their  courses  fight  on  behalf  of 
the  man  who  is  doing  the  will  of  God,  and  all  the 
winds  of  heaven  waft  him  to  his  goal.  By  adding 
to  the  prayer,  “  Thy  will  be  done  on  earth  ”  the 
words,  “as  it  is  in  heaven,”  Jesus  reminded  others 
of  the  fact,  in  the  remembrance  of  which  He  habitu¬ 
ally  lived  Himself,  that  heaven  is  not  only  a  future 
state,  but  a  present  reality,  to  which  those  confused 
and  pained  by  the  wrongs  and  inequalities  of  this 
earthly  life  can  look  away  and  see  a  glorious  image 
of  the  perfection  towards  which  they  aspire.  This 
may  be  the  reason  also  why  He  sometimes,  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  record  of  St.  Matthew,  called  “the 
kingdom  of  God  ”  “  the  kingdom  of  heaven.”  It 
may  be,  indeed,  that  Heaven  in  this  phrase  is  only 
another  name  for  God,  as  in  the  confession  of  the 
Prodigal  Son,  “  I  have  sinned  against  Heaven,”  and 
some  have  considered  it  an  indication  that  Jesus 
lived  in  the  expectation  that  the  kingdom  would 
descend,  in  bodily  shape,  out  of  heaven — a  suggestion 
entirely  unworthy  of  Him — but  the  best  sense  is,  that 
He  knew  there  would  be  heaven  upon  earth  if  the 
will  of  God  were  done  among  the  children  of  men. 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD 


55 


So,  we  come,  at  the  conclusion  of  our  study  of 
“  the  kingdom  of  God,”  to  the  same  point  to  which 
we  were  brought  by  the  study  of  “  the  Gospel.” 
It  expresses  the  secret  of  Jesus,  the  blessedness 
He  had  to  infuse  into  human  existence,  and  the 
goal  towards  which  he  was  to  conduct  the  history 
of  mankind.  In  some  respects  it  is  a  narrower 
conception  than  “  the  Gospel,”  being  encumbered 
with  local  and  temporary  associations  ;  but  in  others 
it  is  more  expansive,  suggesting  multitude,  authority 
and  organization.  It  expresses  the  consciousness 
of  One  who  has  been  familiar  with  an  order  widely 
different  from  the  condition  of  this  disordered  world, 
but  who  knows  Himself  appointed  to  transmute 
man’s  abode  of  sin  and  misery  into  a  holy  and 
happy  province  of  the  Heavenly  Father’s  empire* 


To  some  readers  the  treatment  in  this  chapter  of 
the  most  comprehensive  phrase  in  the  teaching  of 
Jesus  may  be  felt  to  be  unsympathetic.  In  our 

*  There  is  considerable  similarity  between  this  chapter  and 
a  chapter  entitled  “The  Messiah”  in  the  author’s  Christology 
of  Jesus ;  “  the'  kingdom  of  God”  being,  in  fact,  an  inevitable 
category  in  any  work  on  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  whether 
dogmatic  or  ethical.  I  may  be  allowed  to  refer  to  the  other 
volume  for  details  as  to  the  conflicts  waged  round  this  great 
phrase  in  recent  years.  To  the  books  there  cited  may  be  added 
Wrede’s  Das  messianische  Gehei)n?iiss  in  den  Evangelien,  Holtz- 
mann’s  Das  messia?iische  Bewnsstsein  Jesu)  and  Schweitzers 
Das  Messianitdts-  und  Leidensgcheimniss,  together  with  the 
latter’s  work,  Von  Reimarus  zu  Wrede}  especially  chapter  xix. 


56 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


day  “  the  kingdom  of  God  ”  has  certainly  experienced 
a  remarkable  revival.  To  many  it  is  the  name  for 
all  they  are  able  to  imagine  of  the  new  heavens 
and  the  new  earth.  Though  they  may  be  members 
or  even  ministers  of  the  Church,  they  feel  less 
enthusiasm  for  the  Church  than  for  the  Kingdom  ; 
because,  while  in  their  eyes  the  Church  is  only  a 
means  to  an  end,  the  Kingdom  is  the  end  itself. 
To  others  this  is  the  master-word  of  modern  theology 
In  the  Ritschlian  system  there  are  two  poles — the 
one  the  love  of  God,  in  which  the  whole  of  history 
lies  wrapped  up,  ready  to  unfold,  like  the  flower 
from  the  bud  ;  and  the  other  this  idea,  which  is  the 
development  in  time  and  experience  of  all  that  is 
intended  for  the  saints  in  the  love  of  their  Father. 
Even  if  it  be  conceded  to  be  questionable  whether, 
because  this  was  the  master-word  of  Jesus,  it  must, 
therefore,  be  the  master-word  of  our  thinking,  still 
it  may  be  contended  that  at  least  it  should  supply 
the  principle  of  division  for  such  an  exhibition  of 
His  own  teaching  as  is  attempted  in  this  volume, 
instead  of  one  borrowed  from  philosophy.  It  would 
not  be  difficult  to  combine  the  two  or  to  substitute 
for  the  titles  adopted  in  this  volume  others  redolent 
of  the  phraseology  of  Jesus.  Thus,  in  place  of  the 
Highest  Good,  we  might  say  the  Blessings  of  the 
Kingdom ;  instead  of  Virtue,  the  Character  of 
the  Citizens  ;  and,  instead  of  Duty,  the  Laws  of 
the  Kingdom. 


RIGHTEOUSNESS 


Matt.  iii.  15.  Mark  ii.  17. 

v.  6,  10,  20.  vii.  8,  9. 

vi.  1,  33.  xii.  31. 

x.  41. 

xiii.  17,  43,  49. 
xxi.  32. 

xxiii.  23, 28,  29,  35. 
xxv.  37. 
xxviii.  20. 


Luke  v.  32. 
vi.  20-49 
xi.  42. 
xiii.  6-9. 


CHAPTER  IV, 

RIGHTEOUSNESS 

IN  a  preceding  chapter  it  was  shown  that  the 
blessedness  of  each  beatitude  is  to  be  sought 
in  the  reason  annexed  to  it ;  and  in  the  last  chapter 
we  saw  that,  both  in  the  first  beatitude  and  the 
eighth,  the  promise  in  the  reason  annexed  is  “  the 
kingdom  of  heaven.”  I  have  already  also  adverted 
briefly  to  the  promises  thus  made  in  several  of  the 
other  beatitudes.  But  I  passed  over  one  such 
promise,  not  because  of  its  being  unimportant,  but 
because  it  is  so  important  as  to  demand  consideration 
by  itself.  This  is  the  beatitude  which  says,  “  Blessed 
are  they  who  hunger  and  thirst  after  righteousness, 
for  they  shall  be  filled  ”  ;  and  it  hardly  requires  to  be 
pointed  out  that  what  they  are  to  be  filled  with 
is  righteousness.  Thus  is  righteousness  seen  to  be 
one  of  the  elements  of  blessedness.  But  from  the 
great  Teacher  it  receives  a  much  more  marked 
distinction  ;  for,  after  completing  the  Beatitudes, 
He  returns  to  this  one  and  makes  righteousness 
the  text  of  the  ensuing  discourse. 

“  Righteousness  ”  was  not,  any  more  than  “  the 


59 


6o 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


kingdom  of  God,”  a  conception  original  to  the 
Preacher.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  one  of  the  most 
prominent  ideas  of  the  Old  Testament ;  and  the 
passion  for  righteousness,  which  He  characterized  by 
the  phrase  “  hungering  and  thirsting  after  righteous¬ 
ness,”  may  be  called  a  peculiarly  Hebrew  instinct. 

In  the  Old  Testament  righteousness  is  originally  a 
legal  idea.  It  supposes  two  parties  at  the  judgment- 
seat,  the  one  of  whom  is  in  the  right  and  the  other 
in  the  wrong  ;  and  the  office  of  justice  is  to  see  that 
each  of  the  two  gets  his  own  deserts.  In  human 
justice,  of  course,  this  is  liable  to  many  kinds  of 
failure  ;  but,  whether  the  judge  does  justice  by  him 
or  not,  there  must  be  one  of  the  parties  in  the  right  ; 
and  to  be  in  this  position,  whether  recognised  as 
such  or  not,  is  to  be  righteous.  Of  course,  there 
is  a  higher  tribunal  than  that  of  human  justice,  and 
every  human  being  may,  at  all  times,  be  conceived 
as  ideally  at  the  bar  of  God,  where  he  will  receive 
a  sentence  about  the  accuracy  of  which  there  can 
be  no  dispute  ;  and  he  who  at  this  bar  might,  either 
in  regard  to  some  particular  action  or  in  regard 
to  the  general  tenor  of  his  life,  be  entitled  to  a  verdict 
in  his  favour  is  the  righteous  man.  Thus  rightequs- 

,  '  '  '--v 

ness  is  the  favourable  verdict  of  God  ;  and  ft  may 
imply  also  the  practical  justification  ensuing  from 
the  decision  of  the  heavenly  Judge,  when  He  makes 
the  lot  of  the  person  whom  He  justifies  correspond 
with  the  verdict.  This  consequence  is  made  specially 


RIGHTEOUSNESS 


61 


prominent  in  the  second  half  of  Isaiah,  where 
“righteousness”  is  employed  in  a  sense  not  much 
different  from  “  prosperity,”  or  rather,  perhaps, 
“  salvation.”  Most  people  use  righteousness  as  a 
term  for  the  behaviour  of  man  to  man  ;  and  it 
includes  this  ;  but,  when  Christ  speaks  of  hungering 
and  thirsting  after  righteousness,  and  of  being  filled 
with  it,  there  can  be  little  doubt  that,  in  accordance 
with  the  usage  of  His  race,  the  prize  He  has  in  view' 
is  the  favourable  verdict  of  God  on  a  man’s  character 
and  conduct.* 

No  better  way  of  ascertaining  what  the  hunger 
and  thirst  after  righteousness  means  will  be  found 
than  to  study  the  state  of  St.  Paul’s  feelings  before 
he  became  a  Christian.  He  had  been  trained  in 
the  Scriptures  of  his  race,  and  in  a  godly  home  ; 
and  in  his  experience  the  total  effect  of  the  pre- 
Christian  revelation  may  be  said  to  have  reached  its 
culmination.  To  him  righteousness  appeared  the 


*  Speaking  of  the  New  Testament  usage  of  this  term, 
Professor  Stevens  ( The  Theology  of  the  New  Testament)  remarks  : 
44  In  profane  Greek,  righteousness  is  chiefly  a  social  virtue,  usage 
and  custom  prescribing  the  standard  of  righteousness  and 
measuring  its  elevation.  But  in  the  New  Testament,  righteous¬ 
ness  is,  above  all  things,  a  religious  word  ;  it  is  rightness  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  divine  standard ;  it  is  conformity  to  the  will  and 
nature  of  God  Himself.”  And  Professor  Skinner  ( Commentary 
on  Isaiah ,  xl.-lxvi.,  Appendix  II.),  speaking  of  the  Old  Testament 
usage,  says  that,  “when  any  person  or  act  is  spoken  of  as 
righteous,  a  religious  reference  is  probably  always  included,  the 
ideal  tribunal  being  that  of  God.” 


62 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


be-all  and  the  end-all  of  existence  ;  he  felt  he  must 
die  if  he  could  not  procure  it ;  and  by  righteousness 
he  understood  the  favourable  verdict  of  God  on  his 
life.  Luther  was  brought,  by  the  training  of  his 
early  days,  to  exactly  the  same  state  of  mind  ;  the 
thing  he  supremely  desired  was  precisely  the  same — • 
a  favourable  verdict  of  God  on  his  character  and 
conduct — and  the  flesh  was  eaten  from  his  bones 
because  he  despaired  of  attaining  it.  While  much 
can  be  said  against  Pharisaism,  and  much  against 
Roman  Catholicism,  it  was  under  Pharisaic  auspices 
that  Paul,  and  under  Roman  Catholic  auspices  that 
Luther,  arrived  at  this  conviction  ;  and  it  may  be 
open  to  question  whether  Protestantism  is  everywhere 
training  up  the  populations  under  its  charge  to  realise 
as  much  as  this  in  as  poignant  a  way.  But,  if  this 
is  not  done,  the  very  foundations  on  which  serious 
religion  can  be  built  are  not  being  laid.  In  our 
Lord’s  beatitude  the  blessedness  of  being  filled  with 
righteousness  is  conditioned  on  hungering  and  thirst¬ 
ing  after  it. 

The  sympathy  of  Christ  with  the  training  imparted 
by  the  Old  Testament,  and  with  the  passion  for 
righteousness  thereby  generated,  is  expressed  very 
distinctly  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  before  the 
Preacher  proceeds  to  the  exposition  of  His  own  ideal ; 
the  motive  underlying  this  declaration  being  a  fear 
lest  His  subsequent  references  to  the  Old  Testament 
should  be  understood  as  disparaging  to  its  authority. 


RIGHTEOUSNESS 


63 


In  order  to  avoid  this  danger,  He  prefaced  His 
exposition  with  the  statement  :  “  Think  not  that  I 
am  come  to  destroy  the  law  or  the  prophets  :  I  am 
not  come  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfil ;  for,  verily  I  say 
unto  you,  till  heaven  and  earth  pass,  one  jot  or  one 
tittle  shall  in  no  wise  pass  from  the  law  till  all  be 
fulfilled.”  In  our  day  this  has  been  declared  to  be 
as  extreme  a  misrepresentation  of  the  mind  of  Christ 
as  the  annals  of  falsification  contain  ;  one  critic 
remarking  that  it  is  just  as  credible  that  Jesus  said 
this  as  it  would  be  if  a  Romish  book  asserted  that, 
after  nailing  his  theses  to  the  church-door,  Luther 
had  bought  an  indulgence.  But  the  truth  is,  there 
are  few  sayings  of  our  Lord  more  strongly  authenti¬ 
cated  by  every  internal  sign ;  and  it  is  only  by  putting 
on  it  a  meaning  which  it  does  not  bear,  and  which  is 
contrary  to  the  Preacher’s  obvious  intention,  that  it 
is  brought  into  antagonism  with  the  general  strain 
of  His  teaching.  If  it  referred  to  the  details  of  the 
ceremonial  law,  such  as  those  about  which  St.  Paul 
and  the  Judaizers  contended,  of  course  it  would  be 
outrageously  in  opposition  not  only  to  St.  Paul  but 
to  Jesus  Himself,  as  His  mind  is  expounded  in  other 
portions  of  the  Gospels.  But  to  suppose  this  is  quite 
unnecessary.  Those  who  have  been  most  in  sym¬ 
pathy  with  Him  have  not  misunderstood  Him  here, 
and  they  have  not  seen  the  necessity  for  any  violent 
vindication  of  His  consistency.  By  “the  law”  they 
have  understood  the  education  of  the  Old  Testament 


64 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


as  a  whole  ;  and,  when  Christ  says  that  He  came  not 
to  destroy  this,  but  to  fulfil  it,  they  have  understood 

* 

that^He  intended  to  honour  the  teachers  of  the 
dispensation  preceding  His  own  and  to  intimate  that 
their  work  was  not  to  be  annulled  by  His,  but,  on 
the  contrary,  carried  on  to  its  completion.  To  the 
men  of  revelation  in  the  Old  Testament  it  was 
vouchsafed  to  make  known  the  mind  of  God  as  to 
the  type  of  character  and  conduct  which  He  approved. 
All  their  doctrine  on  this  subject  Jesus  accepts, 
sympathizing  with  it  from  the  bottom  of  His  heart. 
The  tone  of  His  references  all  through  His  ministry 
amply  confirms  this  ;  for  they  are  not  only  frequent, 
but  full  of  affection  and  reverence,  like  the  references 
of  a  son  to  the  utterances  of  an  honoured  father. 
Christ  accepted  the  education  of  the  Old  Testament 
in  its  entirety.  I  think  we  may  go  further  and  say, 
that  He  accepted  all  the  ethical  wisdom  of  the  ancient 
world  in  so  far  as  it  may  have  been  known  to  Him. 
The  sages  of  Greece  speculated  not  without  success 
on  the  character  and  conduct  pleasing  to  God  ;  ana 
they  sketched,  as  has  been  already  observed,  in  the 
four  cardinal  virtues  the  outlines  of  a  noble  manhood. 
Some  have  supposed  that  the  reason  why  Jesus  dwelt 
comparatively  little  on  such  masculine  virtues,  ex¬ 
patiating  more  frequently  on  the  feminine  graces  of 
character,  such  as  compassion  and  humility,  may 
have  been  because  the  work  in  relation  to  the  former 
had  already  been  done  by  His  predecessors.  Perhaps 


RIGHTEOUSNESS 


65 


this  implies  an  acquaintance  with  pagan  thinkers 
such  as  we  cannot  attribute  to  the  Man  of  Nazareth. 

I 

But  at  any  rate  He  adopted  the  wisdom  of  Moses 
and  the  prophets  ;  not  a  ray  of  light  cast  by  them 
oh  human  life  was  to  be  lost  ;  or,  if  lost,  it  was  to  be 
lost  only  in  the  same  way  in  which  the  morning 
twilight  is  lost  as  it  is  absoi  bed  1  in  the  perfect 
day.* 

Whilst,  however,  thus  incorporating  with  His  own 
teaching  all  noble  conceptions  of  human  conduct  and 
character  already  in  the  world,  He  went  far  beyond 
them.  We  cannot  now  read  the  finest  efforts  of 
pagan  philosophy  in  this  region  without  being 
astonished  at  the  blots  and  the  blanks  by  which  they 


*  Compare  Justin  Martyr:  “Not  because  the  teachings  of 
Plato  are  different  from  those  of  Christ,  but  because  they  are 
not  in  all  respects  similar,  as  neither  are  those  of  the  others, 
Stoics  and  poets  and  historians.  For  each  man  spoke  well  in 
proportion  to  the  share  he  had  of  the  spermatic  Word,  seeing 
what  was  related  to  it.  But  they  who  contradict  themselves  on 
the  more  important  points  appear  not  to  have  possessed  the 
heavenly  wisdom,  and  the  knowledge  which  cannot  be  spoken 
against.  Whatever  things  are  rightly  said  among  all  men  are 
the  property  of  us  Christians.  For,  next  to  God,  we  honour  and 
love  the  Word,  who  is  from  the  unbegotten  and  ineffable  God, 
since  also  He  became  man  for  our  sakes,  that,  becoming  a 
partaker  of  our  sufferings,  He  might  also  bring  us  healing.  For 
all  the  writers  were  able  to  see  realities  darkly  through  the 
sowing  of  the  implanted  Word,  that  was  in  them.  For  the  seed 
and  imitation  imparted  according  to  capacity  is  one  thing,  and 
quite  another  is  the  thing  itself,  of  which  there  is  the  participa¬ 
tion  and  imitation  according  to  the  grace  which  is  from  Him.’’— 
Second  Apology ,  ch.  xiii. 


s 


66 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


are  disfigured.  Even  the  circle  about  Socrates  had 
no  conception  of  the  inviolable  personal  purity  which 
is  a  commonplace  to  those  who  have  been  instructed 
by  Jesus.  In  Cicero’s  delightful  treatise  on  Old  Age 
there  are  traits  of  selfishness,  expressed  with  the 
utmost  naivete \  which  shock  the  moral  sense  of  the 
least  sensitive  Christian.  The  truth  is,  as  someone 
has  observed,  the  pagan  world  not  only  never  pro¬ 
duced  one  holy  man,  but  never  even  drew  the  picture 
of  one.  The  Hebrew  Scriptures  soar  infinitely 
higher;  yet  even  they  come  far  short  of*  the  level 
on  which  Jesus  moves.  It  used  to  be  considered 
a  point  of  orthodoxy  to  maintain  that,  in  ethical 
doctrine,  Christ  did  not  go  beyond  Moses.  But 
it  required  a  great  deal  of  forcing  to  make  this 
even  plausible.  In  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  He 
Himself,  when  quoting  what  had  been  said  “  to  them 
of  old  time,”  might  have  reasoned  that  Moses  had 
been  misunderstood,  and  that  in  His  discourse  He 
was  to  give  the  true  meaning  of  the  ancient  lawgiver  ; 
but,  instead  of  doing  so,  He  gives  the  new  precept 
as  something  of  His  own.  In  what  He  said  about 
divorce — that  Moses  gave  them  his  law  on  the  subject 
on  account  of  the  hardness  of  their  hearts — we  obtain 
a  hint  of  the  true  point  of  view.  The  morality  of 
the  Old  Testament  was  divine;  yet  it  was  human, 
because  modified  by  circumstances  and  in  adaptation 
to  the  stage  of  development  at  which  those  stood 
to  whom  it  was  given.  So  there  was  room  for  a 


RIGHTEOUSNESS 


67 


new  revelation  of  the  divine  mind  and  will ;  and  this 
Jesus  had  come  to  make  known  to  the  world. 

Having  thus  cleared  the  ground,  the  Great  Teacher 
proceeds,  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  to  expound 
His  conception  of  righteousness ;  and,  in  so  doing, 
He  adopts  a  method  frequently  resorted  to  by  every 
expositor  who  knows  his  business  :  He^  contrasts  the 
conception  of  the  subject  in  His  own  mind  with  one 
already  familiar  to  His  hearers — “  Except,”  says  He, 
“  your  righteousness  shall  exceed  the  righteousness 
of  the  scribes  and  Pharisees,  ye  shall  in  no  wise 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven.”  He  proceeds 
to  describe  the  righteousness  of  the  scribes,  as  it 
was  taught  by  them  in  their  sermons  in  the  synagogue, 
going  over  five  points — their  teaching  as  to  the  sixth, 
the  seventh  and  the  third  commandments,  as  to  the 
law  of  retaliation,  and  as  -to  the  love  due  to  others — 
and  in  each  case  to  set  His  new  teaching  over  against 
theirs.  This  goes  on  to  the  end  of  the  fifth  chapter. 
At  the  beginning  of  the  sixth  He  passes  on  to  a  still 
more  piquant  contrast,  comparing  his  own  conception 
of  righteousness,  not  with  the  teaching  of  the  scribes, 
but  with  the  practice  of  the  Pharisees.  This  new 
division  opens  thus — “  Take  heed  that  ye  do  not  your 
righteousness  before  men,  to  be  seen  of  them  ” — not 
“  your  alms  before  men,”  as  our  Bible  most  un¬ 
fortunately  says,  obscuring  the  fact  that  He  is  still 
continuing  the  discussion  of  righteousness.  Only  in 


68 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


the  next  verse  is  mention  made  of  alms,  as  a  specimen 
of  righteousness  ;  and,  after  it,  there  follow  other  two 
specimens,  namely,  prayer  and  fasting. 

The  positive  result  that  comes  out  of  this  thorough 
and  well-planned  discussion  is  that  Christian  righteous¬ 
ness  is  to  be  marked  by  three  characteristics — 
Inwardness,  Secrecy  and  Naturalness. 

I.  Inwardness. 

The  righteousness  of  the  scribes  was  external ;  that 
of  Jesus  is  internal.  Theirs  was  a  righteousness  of 
words  and  actions  ;  His  flows  out  from  the  innermost 
thoughts  and  feelings.  Theirs  was  conventional — 
that  is  to  say,  it  was  intended  for  the  eye  of  society — 
His  was  a  righteousness  of  the  conscience,  having 
regard  only  to  God. 

Society  has  certain  rules  which  its  members  must 
not  transgress  on  pain  of  punishment.  These  punish¬ 
ments  are  of  different  degrees  of  severity.  For  some 
transgressions  it  goes  to  the  extreme  length  of  im¬ 
prisonment  or  even  death.  Assaults  on  the  person, 
forgeries,  thefts,  and  other  serious  crimes  are  thus 
punished ;  and,  accordingly,  such  acts  are  avoided 
by  all  who  have  any  respect  for  themselves  or  the 
social  system  of  which  they  are  members.  To  the 
ordinary  respectable  citizen  the  mere  thought  of 
being  locked  up  in  prison  is  one  of  horror ;  and  to 
a  respectable  family  it  appears  an  intolerable  disgrace 
if  anyone  belonging  to  it  thus  brings  himself  within. 


v 


RIGHTEOUSNESS 


69 


the  clutches  of  the  law.  But  there  are  other  offences 
which  society,  although  not  going  the  length  of 
shutting  those  guilty  of  them  away  behind  prison- 
bars,  yet  highly  disapproves  ;  and  it  finds  means  of 
making  its  disapproval  felt.  This  it  does  by  ex¬ 
cluding  those  who  commit  them  from  its  select 
circles.  A  woman,  for  example,  who  has  broken  the 
seventh  commandment  is  not  put  in  jail,  but  she  is 
visited  with  an  ostracism  of  extreme  painfulness ; 
and  in  circles  that  are  not  exacting  on  other  points 
of  morality  a  breach  of  honour  is  punished  in  a  way 
that  is  keenly  felt. 

By  methods  such  as  these  society  knows  how  to 
protect  itself  against  the  evil  dispositions  of  its 
members ;  and  those  who  have  been  brought  up 
within  the  circle  of  well-ordered  social  life  stand  in 
wholesome  awe  of  the  barriers  on  the  other  side  of 
which  grow  the  forbidden  fruits  of  crime  and  vice. 
The  force  of  public  opinion  is  a  strong  providential 
check  upon  sin  ;  for  none  can  affect  to  despise  fine 
and  imprisonment  ;  and  to  multitudes  the  loss  of 
character  is  a  terror  hardly  less  formidable  ;  because 
it  means  loss  of  position,  of  friendship,  of  everything 
that  makes  life  worth  living.  Accordingly,  by  these 
motives  the  average  man  is  kept  straight.  Nothing 
would  induce  him  so  to  compromise  himself  as  to 
come  under  the  ban  of  the  law  or  the  censure  of 
public  opinion. 

This  is  conventional  goodness.  It  is  of  immense 


70 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


benefit  to  society.  And  it  is  the  utmost  which  the 
majority  aim  at.  Their  boast  is  that  nobody  has 
anything  to  say  against  them.  Yet  it  is  a  very  poor 
kind  of  righteousness.  A  man  does  not  require  to 
be  very  good  to  escape  the  clutches  of  the  police ; 
nor  is  it  difficult  to  obtain  from  society  a  certificate 
of  respectability,  for  its  scrutiny  does  not  go  deep. 
Aware  that  it  is  able  only  to  look  on  the  outward 
appearance,  society  does  not  concern  itself  with 
motives.  One  man  may  be  honest  because  honesty 
is  the  best  policy,  another  because  he  scorns  a  lie ; 
one  may  be  sober  because  drunkenness  interferes 
with  business,  another  because  even  a  single  act  of 
drunkenness  is  an  infinite  degradation  ;  but  society 
makes  no  distinction  between  these  ;  all  it  inquires 
is  whether  a  man  is  honest  or  sober — it  takes  no 
account  of  motives,  feelings  and  thoughts. 

Yet  there  is  a  vast  difference  between  a  man  who 
is  honest  from  policy  and  another  who  is  so  from 
principle  ;  and  it  is  on  this  inner  world  of  feeling 
that  the  ethic  of  Jesus  concentrates  attention.  With 
Christ  the  motive  is  everything  ;  and  sin  is  sin,  though 
it  may  never  escape  outside  the  hidden  world  of  the 
mind.  “Ye  have  heard  that  it  was  said  to  them 
of  old  time,  Thou  shalt  not  kill ;  but  I  say  unto  you, 
that  whosoever  is  angry  with  his  neighbour  without 
a  cause  shall  be  in  danger  of  the  judgment.”  “Ye 
have  heard  that  it  was  said  to  them  of  old  time,  Thou 
,shalt  not  commit  adultery ;  but  I  say  unto  you,  that 


RIGHTEOUSNESS 


71 


whosoever  looketh  on  a  woman  to  lust  after  her  hath 
committed  adultery  already  with  her  in  his  heart.”  A 
man  may  never  commit  the  act  of  adultery,  and  yet 
his  imagination  may  be  a  pandemonium  of  lust  and 
passion  ;  a  man  may  not  inflict  on  his  neighbour 
any  act  of  which  the  law  will  take  cognisance,  and 
yet  he  may  cherish  in  his  heart  a  great  deal  more 
hatred  and  rancour  than  has,  many  a  time,  gone 
to  the  commission  of  murder.  A  man  may  have 
learned  the  lesson  of  conventional  propriety  so  well 
as  never  to  make  a  single  slip  to  which  the  finger 
of  others  can  be  pointed,  and  yet  behind  the  curtain 
that  hides  his  personality  from  the  view  of  his  fellow- 
creatures  may  be  daily  and  hourly  enacting  itself 
a  drama  of  ambition,  envy  and  jealousy,  of  unholy 
desire,  or  of  dark  doubt  and  profanity,  which  he 
would  not  for  the  world  allow  any  eye  to  see.  God’s 
eye,  nevertheless,  sees  all ;  and  these  movements  of 
the  hidden  man  of  the  heart  are  sins  no  less  than 
outward  acts.  This  was  the  ethical  revelation  of 
Jesus. 

2.  Secrecy. 

The  righteousness  of  the  scribes  and  Pharisees  was 
ostentatious  ;  that  recommended  by  Jesus  courts  the 
shade.  When,  in  doing  good,  people  are  thinking 
of  the  eyes  of  the  public  and  not  of  the  eyes  of  God, 
it  is  but  a  step  from  the  avoidance  of  that  which 
would  incur  the  world’s  censure  to  the  pursuit  of 


72 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


that  which  will  win  the  world’s  applause.  And  the 
praise  of  men  can  be  won  by  goodness  or  the 
appearance  of  it  Indeed,  there  is  nothing  to  which 
the  world  renders  more  handsome  homage  than  to 
the  appearance  of  extraordinary  righteousness  or 
sanctity.  Of  this  tendency  in  human  nature  the 
Pharisees  took  advantage,  affecting  in  their  daily 
habits  an  exaggerated  piety.  In  the  sayings  of  our 
Lord  are  preserved  imperishable  pictures  of  their 
practices,  by  which  they  are  pilloried  in  the  eyes  of 
the  ages.  We  see  them  distributing  their  alms  in 
the  synagogues  and  the  streets  with  a  trumpet 
sounding  before  them  ;  standing  with  uplifted  faces 
and  hands  in  public  places  engaged  in  prayer ;  going 
about  on  their  fast-days  with  sad  and  disfigured 
countenances,  that  everyone  may  be  aware  of  the 
sacred  work  in  which  they  are  engaged. 

These  pictures  are  to  us  now  incredible,  and,  as 
we  look  at  them,  we  seem  to  be  reading  about  beings 
of  a  different  species  from  ourselves.  Not  only, 
however,  are  they  amply  confirmed  by  the  literature 
of  the  Jews  themselves,  but  it  is  only  the  difficulty  of 
seeing  ourselves  as  others  see  us  that  prevents  us 
from  detecting  parallel  practices  in  our  own  religious 
life.  In  all  probability  these  practices  of  the  Pharisees 
had  an  excellent  origin,  being  at  first  the  overflowing 
of  genuine  zeal.  In  a  time  of  persecution  someone 
may  have  thought  it  his  duty  to  pray  in  a  public 
place  in  defiance  of  the  law  ;  in  a  time  of  famine 


RIGHTEOUSNESS 


73 


someone,  melting  with  pity,  may,  to  shame  the 
selfishness  of  the  rich,  have  given  his  alms  away  in 
the  market-place.  By  the  noble  example  others  were 
stirred  up  to  go  and  do  likewise.  By  degrees  that 
which  had  been  the  exception  became  the  rule  ;  and 
all  who  wished  to  come  up  to  a  certain  standard  had 
to  follow  suit.  But  the  practice  continued  after  the 
enthusiasm  by  which  it  had  been  generated  had 
passed  away  ;  and  it  remained  as  a  lying  sign  for 
feelings  no  longer  in  existence.  Thus  may  the 
virtues  of  one  generation  be  the  vices  of  the  next. 
To  the  contemporaries  of  Jesus  these  practices  were 
only  a  theatrical  mask,  in  which  they  were  playing 
for  the  reward  of  popular  admiration.  And  this  is 
the  very  meaning  of  the  name  He  applied  to  the 
Pharisees,  when,  as  He  often  did,  He  called  them 
“  hypocrites  ”  ;  the  original  significance  of  this  word 
being  nothing  else  than  “  play-actors.” 

This  led  Him  to  impose  on  His  followers  a  strict 
law  of  secrecy.  “Take  heed,”  He  said,  “that  ye  do 
not  your  righteousness  before  men.”  “  When  thou 
doest  thine  alms,  let  not  thy  left  hand  know  what 
thy  right  hand  doeth.”  “  When  thou  prayest,  enter 
into  thy  closet  and  shut  thy  door.”  “  When  thou 
fastest,  anoint  thine  head  and  wash  thy  face,  that 
thou  appear  not  unto  men  to  fast.” 

These  precepts  seem  to  be  inconsistent  with  others 
which  came  from  the  same  lips.  In  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mount  itself  He  says,  “  Let  your  light  so 


74 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


shine  before  men  that  they  may  see  your  good 
works  ” ;  and  elsewhere  He  demands  with  extra¬ 
ordinary  solemnity  that  all  who  believe  in  Him 
should  confess  Him  before  men.  But  this  paradox 
is  not  difficult  of  solution.  The  public  side  of  virtue 
must  be  balanced  and  kept  in  its  right  place  by  the 
private  side.  If  a  man’s  prayers  in  public  are  more 
numerous  than  his  private  devotions,  he  is  in  a  bad 
way  ;  but,  if  his  testimony  in  public  is  accompanied 
with  a  hidden  life  of  intercourse  with  God,  it  is  likely 
to  be  salutary  for  all  concerned.  If  a  man  never 
gives  to  the  poor  or  to  the  cause  of  Christ  except 
when  his  name  is  to  appear  in  the  newspapers  or  in 
a  subscription-list,  he  is  no  better  than  the  hypocrites 
of  the  time  of  our  Lord ;  but,  if  a  man’s  public 
charity  be  only  the  expression  of  a  spirit  of  com¬ 
passion  and  helpfulness,  which  he  carries  with  him 
wherever  he  goes,  then  his  example  may  fairly  be 
allowed  to  be  an  encouragement  to  others,  and  he 
may  even  without  danger  enjoy  the  gratitude  called 
forth  by  his  generosity. 

r«i* 

3.  Naturalness. 

The  righteousness  of  the  Pharisees  was  a  manu¬ 
factured  article  ;  Jesus  desired  a  goodness  which  was 
a  product  of  nature — a  living  flower,  the  beauty  of 
which  is  organically  connected  with  the  root  from 
which  it  springs.  When  goodness  was  supposed  to 


RIGHTEOUSNESS 


75 


consist  in  fasting  twice  a  week,  in  paying  tithes  of 
mint  and  anise  and  cummin,  and  in  washing  the 
hands  before  meals,  it  is  easy  to  see  that  such 
practices  were  a  mere  garment,  which  could  be  put  on 
or  off  at  pleasure  ;  but  Jesus  desiderated  a  morality 
in  the  blood  and  in  the  bone.  “  Either,”  says  He, 
“  make  the  tree  good  and  his  fruit  good,  or  else 
make  the  tree  corrupt  and  his  fruit  corrupt.”  “  A 
good  tree,”  He  says  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount 
itself,  “  cannot  bring  forth  evil  fruit,  neither  can  a 
corrupt  tree  bring  forth  good  fruit.”  No  more 
characteristic  saying  ever  issued  from  His  lips.  It 
comes  to  this,  that  he  who  would  do  good  must  be  a 
good  man  ;  real  goodness  is  not  possible  on  easier 
terms.  On  the  other  hand,  let  anyone  be  evil  at 
the  core,  and  then,  even_against  his  will,  his  actions 
will  be  bad  also. 

The  latter  statement  may  seem  to  contradict  what 
has  been  already  said.  The  words  and  the  deeds  of 
the  Pharisees,  it  may  be  argued,  were  good,  and  yet 
their  hearts  were  corrupt.  Jesus  would  not,  however, 
have  allowed  that  even  their  outward  conduct  was 
good.  It  imposed,  it  is  true,  on  the  multitude ;  but 
to  the  discerning  and  spiritual  eye  it  was  vulgar  and 
counterfeit.  He  was  not  deceived  by  it  ;  His  dis¬ 
ciples,  learning  from  Him,  detected  it  to  be  a  sham  ; 
and  even  the  multitude  at  last,  under  His  teaching, 
found  it  out.  Christ  has  communicated  to  His 
people  an  instinct  for  detecting  spurious  goodness : 


76 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


as  St.  Paul  sa)rs,  “  he  that  is  spiritual  judgeth  all 
things.”  When  a  hypocrite,  after  a  long  course  of 
duplicity,  falls  at  length,  and  is  exposed  in  the  eyes 
of  all,  it  will  generally  be  found  that  the  truly 
spiritual  have  not  been  deceived,  though  they  have 
held  their  peace.  As  an  uneducated  man,  when  he 
attempts  to  make  use  of  the  language  of  the  learned, 
is  sure,  by  a  misplaced  accent  or  some  similar  nicety, 
to  bet.ay  himself  to  those  who  know,  so  is  the 
Pharisee  detected  by  the  saint.  “  A  corrupt  tree 
cannot  bring  forth  good  fruit.” 

But  neither,  on  the  other  hand,  can  a  good  tree 
bring  forth  evil  fruit.  If  a  man  is  genuine  at  the 
core,  he  does  not  need  to  try  excessively  to  do 
right,  and  he  does  not  require  to  assume  a  cloak 
to  cover  his  defects.  His  character  may  be  im¬ 
perfect  ;  it  may  be  disfigured  with  exaggerations 
and  deficiencies ;  its  possessor  may  make  many 
slips  and  false  steps ;  but  still  his  influence  is 
wholesome,  and  those  brought  into  contact  with 
him  feel  that  they  are  in  touch  with  reality.  This 
is  the  final  solution  of  the  contradiction  between 
the  law  of  secrecy,  as  expounded  by  Jesus,  and 
the  obligation,  also  enforced  by  Him,  to  shine 
before  men.  The  goodness  which  is  growing 
spontaneously  from  a  natural  root  is  safe  from 
corruption  even  if  exposed  to  publicity ;  because 
it  is  not  showing  off  its  beauty  for  effect,  but 
displaying  it  because  it  cannot  help  it,  as  the 


RIGHTEOUSNESS 


77 


flower  grows  or  the  bird  sings  because  it  is  its 
nature  so  to  do. 

In  ethical  systems  the  question  has  often  been 
raised  whether  that  is  the  superior  virtue  which  is 
achieved  by  effort  or  that  which  is  achieved  with 
ease.  The  usual  answer  is,  I  think,  that  virtue  is 
praiseworthy  exactly  in  proportion  to  the  effort 
required  to  bring  it  to  pass.*  But  surely  there 
must  be  a  fundamental  error  in  a  line  of  argument 
which  leads  to  a  conclusion  so  unnatural.  The 
strenuous  virtue,  which  bears  on  its  face  the  marks 
of  the  effort  by  which  it  has  been  attained,  has 
its  own  merit,  to  which  homage  ought  to  be 

rendered  ;  but  the  incomparable  grace  which  we 
call  the  beauty  of  holiness  belongs  to  the  virtue 
which  proceeds  without  effort  from  a  nature  good 
to  the  core.  This  conclusion,  it  is  true,  raises 

many  questions  :  How  is  this  perfect  naturalness 
to  be  attained  ?  is  it,  like  physical  beauty,  the 

prerogative  of  a  few  favourites  of  fortune,  or  is  it 
accessible  to  all?  We  shall  come  to  this  question 
by  and  by  in  the  course  of  our  study  of  the 

teaching  of  Jesus  ;  but,  in  the  meantime,  I  content 
myself  with  saying  that  the  highest  grace  of  the 
goodness  He  demands  is  its  naturalness. 

The  exposition  of  the  nature  of  righteousness  by 
contrasting  it  with  the  teaching  of  the  scribes  and 


*  As  is  well  known,  this  was  the  view  of  Kant. 


78 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


the  practice  of  the  Pharisees,  comes  to  an  end 
about  the  middle  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  ; 
and  it  is  a  question  whether  the  argument  is 
sustained  after  this  point  or  whether  the  Speaker, 
having  concluded  the  description  of'  righteousness, 
diverges  to  other  topics,  passing  from  one  to  another 
without  any  very  close  connection.  I  am  inclined 
to  believe  that  at  vi.  19  He  still  goes  on  describing 
the  nature  of  righteousness,  by  contrasting  it  with 
what  may  be  called  the  ordinary  life  of  worldly 
men,  who,  living  to  eat  and  to  drink,  forget  their 
origin  and  their  destiny  in  the  cares  and  pleasures 
of  the  world.  This  is  confirmed  by  the  great 
statement  with  which  this  section  winds  up  :  “  Seek 
ye  first  the  kingdom  of  God  and  His  righteousness.” 
It  is  even  possible  that  the  dominant  idea  of 
righteousness  can  be  traced  right  through  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount  to  its  close.  This  is,  how¬ 
ever,  dubious  ;  and  I  shall,  therefore,  break  off  here 
the  account  of  righteousness,  only  remarking  how 
utterly  those  are  mistaken  who  labour  under  the 
belief  that  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  is  a  very 
simple  and  plain  affair,  containing  a  few  kindly 
and  homely  rules,  which  commend  themselves  to 
the  common  sense  of  all  and  present  no  great 
difficulties  to  anyone  who  is  disposed  to  live  an 
honest  life.  It  is  not  infrequent  to  hear  people 
say  that  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  is  enough  for 
them,  and  that,  in  their  opinion,  the  world  would 


RIGHTEOUSNESS 


79 


be  no  loser  if  all  other  theology  were  forgotten  ; 
such  doctrines  as  the  corruption  of  human  nature, 
the  inability  of  man  to  keep  God’s  law,  and  the 
need  of  a  Saviour,  being  inventions  of  theology 
and  figments  of  the  pulpit. 

Jesus  is  conceived  as  a  teacher  genial  and  original, 
who,  seeing  mankind  crushed  under  the  burdens 
heaped  upon  them  by  priests  and  scribes,  called 
His  audience  away  from  the  legality  of  Pharisaism 
to  an  easier  religion,  telling  them  that  God  was 
not  a  tyrant  or  taskmaster,  demanding  a  strict  and 
scrupulous  obedience,  but  a  Father,  who  would  take 
his  erring  child,  just  as  he  was,  to  His  breast, 
and  then  accept  from  him  such  services  as  he 
might,  without  effort  or  anxiety,  be  able  to  render. 
Such  shallow  platitudes  have  not  only  misled  a 
prejudiced  mind  here  and  there,  but  have  even 
deceived  whole  generations  of  men.  They  rest, 
however,  on  an  almost  inconceivable  misunder¬ 
standing  of  the  words  of  Jesus.  The  reason  why 
He  revised  the  old  law  and  the  practice  of  His 
time  was  not  because  they  were  too  strict,  but 
because  they  were  too  lax.  He  sharpens  the  edge 
of  every  precept  and  enlarges  the  scope  of  every 
principle.  There  is  an  intensity  in  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount  that  is  appalling  ;  it  searches  the  conscience 
as  with  an  electric  ray.  The  Preacher  demands 
a  height  of  character  and  attainment  never  even 
dreamed  of  by  Moses  and  the  prophets.  When 


So 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


He  says,  “Ye  are  the  salt  of  the  earth,”  what  does 
this  imply  about  the  moral  condition  of  the  mass 
of  men?  When  He  says,  “Ye  are  the  light  of 
the  world,”  what  does  this  imply  about  the  world  ? 
And  how  do  Christians  come  to  be  in  such  a 
condition  that  they  are  to  other  human  beings 
what  salt  is  to  corruption  or  light  to  darkness  ? 
It  is  mere  stupidity  to  ignore  such  problems. 
These  are  the  hidden  foundations  on  which  the 
whole  structure  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  is  erected  ; 
and  it  is  only  by  getting  down  to  them,  and 
forming  some  fair  estimate  of  their  magnitude, 
that  we  obtain  any  just  conception  of  the  mind 
of  the  Divine  Teacher. 


MISSING  THE  HIGHEST  GOOD 


6 


Matt.  vi.  25. 

x.  28,  39. 
xvi.  25,  26. 


Matt.  v.  22.  26,  29,  30. 

vii.  2,  21,  23-27. 

viii.  12. 

x.  15,  28. 

xi.  22,  24. 

xii.  32,  36,  41, 
42. 

xiii.  3°>  39,  42, 
5°- 

xvi.  27. 

xviii.  6,  8,  9,  14. 

xxi.  44. 

xxii.  13. 

xxiii.  14,  15,  33. 

xxiv.  51. 

xxv.  30,  41,  46. 

xxvi.  24. 


Mark  viii.  35,  36,  37. 
xi.  14. 


Mark  iii.  29. 
vi.  II. 

viii.  38. 

ix.  42-50. 
xii.  40. 
xiv.  21. 
xvi.  16. 


Luke  ix.  24,  25. 

xv.  4,  8,  13. 
xvii.  33. 

xix.  10-27. 

Luke  vi.  25.  49. 

ix.  26. 

x.  10-16. 

xi.  31. 

xii.  5,  9,  46 

.  ?8’  59‘ 

xiii.  1-5,  6-9 

23-3°- 

xvi.  19-31.  ' 

xvii.  2. 

xx.  18,  47. 


CHAPTER  V. 


MISSING  THE  HIGHEST  GOOD 

HOWEVER  the  end  of  life  may  be  conceived — 
whether  as  Blessedness,  or  as  the  Kingdom 
of  God,  or  as  Righteousness — one  thing  is  indubitable 
in  the  entire  teaching  of  Jesus — that  He  looks  upon 
the  end  of  life  as  capable  of  being  missed,  and  as 
actually  having  been  missed,  by  the  children  of  men.* 
When  He  speaks  of  Blessedness,  He  at  the  same 
time  utters  woes,  which  will  be  the  portion  of  some 
instead  of  blessedness  ;  when  He  speaks  of  the  King¬ 
dom,  He  distinctly  thinks  of  some  who  will  not  be 
able  to  enter  into  it  ;  and  when  He  speaks  of  Right¬ 
eousness,  He  glances  at  many  who  are  living  in 
unrighteousness.  In  short,  there  is  a  considerable 
proportion  of  the  words  of  Christ  occupied  with  the 
description  and  the  denunciation  of  sin. 

This  is  the  point  at  which  the  ethical  teaching  of 
Jesus  differs  most  widely  from  the  similar  teaching 
of  philosophy.  The  ethics  of  the  philosophers  bear 
a  considerable  resemblance  to  the  teaching  of  Jesus 

*  A  conception  of  sin  which  agrees  closely  with  that  expressed 
in  both  the  Hebrew  NDil  and  the  Greek  apapravco. 


84 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


in  so  far  as  the  setting  up  of  an  ideal  of  character 
and  conduct  is  concerned  ;  but  little  or  nothing  is 
said  by  philosophers  about  the  inability  of  men 
to  attain  to  the  standard,  or  of  the  manifold  forms 
of  failure  exhibited  in  actual  experience.  In  English 
Moral  Philosophy,  especially,  this  ignoring  of  the 
facts  of  the  case  is  painfully  universal  ;  and  it  imparts 
an  air  of  unreality  to  the  whole.  This  may  be  the 
reason  why  philosophy  is  spoken  of,  in  common 
language,  with  distrust,  and  moralists  are  in  but 
indifferent  repute.  For,  though  the  common  man 
may  listen  for  a  while  to  eloquent  descriptions  of 
an  ideal  life,  and  may  look  with  aspiration  towards 
the  moral  altitudes  to  which  he  is  directed,  yet  he 
knows  very  well  that  his  own  moral  life  is  a  lament¬ 
able  failure,  and  that  the  history  of  human  nature 
is  the  same  on  a  vastly  larger  scale ;  and  he 
distrusts  an  account  of  his  condition  which  says 
nothing  about  this  painful  fact.  In  spite  of  its 
tendency  to  self-satisfaction,  humanity  is  aware  of 
its  own  broken  bones,  and  it  knows  that  these  must 
be  dealt  with  before  there  is  any  prospect  of  climbing 
the  heights^  of  moral  attainment. 

While  the  sayings  of  Jesus  abound  with  warnings, 
couched  in  many  different  forms  of  expression,  that 
the  end  of  life  may  be  missed,  there  is  not,  in  the 
entire  catalogue  of  His  words,  one  in  which  this  is 
so  impressively  embodied  as  the  saying  which  has 
arrested  the  attention  oi  every  generation  :  “  What 


MISSING  THE  HIGHEST  GOOD 


85 


shall  it  profit  a  man  if  he  gain  the  whole  world  and 
lose  his  own  soul  ?  ” 

It  so  happens  that,  in  the  English  translation,  this 
possibility  appears  in  three  forms — it  is  represented 
as  possible  that  a  man  may  lose  “  himself,”  or  lose 
his  “  life,”  or  lose  his  “  soul  ”  ;  and,  although  this  is 
accidental,*  the  circumstance  may  be  taken  ad¬ 
vantage  of,  in  order  to  bring  out  all  sides  of  Christ’s 
idea,  as  these  three  alternatives  enable  us  to  do. 

The  possibility  that  a  man  may  lose  “  himself  ”  is 
the  possibility  that  he  may  never  attain  to  the  moral 
and  spiritual  stature  for  which  he  was  designed,  but 
be  dwarfed  into  a  nonentity.  As  a  benevolent  eye, 
looking  on  a  group  of  children  in  a  degraded  neigh¬ 
bourhood,  may  see  a  vision  of  the  rosy  health  which 
might  have  filled  out  their  bloodless  features  and 
emaciated  limbs,  if  they  had  been  reared  in  a  more 
favourable  environment,  so,  we  have  reason  to  believe, 
from  His  own  words,  Jesus  habitually  saw  with  the 
mind’s  eye  the  spiritual  development  which  those 
around  Him  might  have  attained  had  their  desire 
been  fixed  more  steadily  on  the  true  end  of  life. 

What  He  thought  of  most  frequently  as  impeding 


*  But,  after  writing  the  above,  I  found  in  Wellhausen  the 
very  same  idea,  of  course  without  any  reference  to  the  English 
translation.  Commenting  on  Mark  viii.  35,  he  observes:  “  Fur 
i}/vxri  gibt  es  kein  ausreichendes  ^Equivalent ;  es  steht  zugleich 
Seele,  Leben,  und  das  Reflexiv  (sich  selbst).’’ 


86 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


the  growth  of  true  manhood  was  the  pursuit  of  wealth 
and  property.  Thus,  when  invited  on  a  certain 
occasion  to  divide  the  property  of  two  brothers,  who 
had  fallen  out  about  their  respective  shares,  He 
said  to  them  sadly,  “Take  heed,  and  beware  of 
covetousness,  for  a  man’s  life  consisteth  not  in  the 
abundance  of  the  things  which  he  possesseth.”  Then 
He  proceeded  to  tell  the  story  of  the  Rich  Fool, 
finishing  up  with  the  statement,  “  So  is  he  that 
layeth  up  treasure  for  himself,  but  is  not  rich  towards 
God.”  In  this  final  phrase — “rich  towards  God” — 
we  have,  it  is  clear,  a  very  perfect  description  of 
Christ’s  ideal  ;  and  what  it  suggests  is  a  development 
of  the  Godward  side  of  human  nature  in  prayer, 
aspiration,  charity,  generosity,  and  all  the  other 
qualities  that  go  to  the  fashioning  of  a  noble  man¬ 
hood.  This  was  what  Jesus  desiderated  for  every¬ 
one  ;  and  to  miss  it,  which  was  fatally  possible,  was, 
in  His  eyes,  the  greatest  of  calamities.* 

But  Jesus  was  hardly  less  sensible  of  the  danger  to 
which  the  poor  were  exposed  of  missing  the  prize 


*  Not  only  the  loss  of  the  self,  but  even  injury  to  it — any 
avoidable  restraint  on  its  development  or  diminution  of  its  powers 
— is  deprecated  in  the  strongest  terms.  This  seems  to  be  the 
force  of  the  alternative  in  Luke  ix.  25,  iavrov  de  anoXiaas  fj 
(rjiiuodeis.  The  Authorised  Version  translates,  “  If  he  lose  him¬ 
self  or  be  cast  away,”  and  the  Revised,  no  better,  “  If  he  lose 
or  forfeit  his  own  self.”  Field,  Otium  Norvice?ise}  seems  to  have 
been  the  first  to  detect  the  true  force  of  the  alternative :  *•  If 
iavrov  is  to  be  taken  in  connexion  with  both  verbs,  we  may 


MISSING  THE  HIGHEST  GOOD 


87 


through  an  opposite  cause — on  account,  not  of  the 
glamour  of  riches,  but  the  pressure  of  poverty.  Indeed, 
the  commencement  of  His  ministry  among  the  fisher¬ 
men  and  peasantry  of  Galilee  is  burdened  with  the 
pathos  of  this  aspect  of  the  condition  of  His  hearers. 

It  cut  Him  to  the  heart  to  see  that  His  fellow-men 
and  fellow-countrymen  should  be  so  stunted  and  un-' 
developed  ;  and  all  for  what  ?  Slender  was  the 
livelihood,  and  attended  by  few  pleasures,  which  they 
extracted  from  the  grudging  soil.  Yet  for  this  they 
were  sacrificing  themselves.  They  had  no  time  to 
pray,  to  think,  to  cultivate  spiritual  beauty  or  dignity. 
This  is  the  reflection  that  echoes  through  those  match¬ 
less  portions  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  in  which 
He  reminds  them  that  their  heavenly  Father  feeds 
the  ravens  and  arrays  the  lilies  in  a  glory  beyond 
that  of  Solomon;  and  His  logic  is:  You  do  not 
require  to  toil  and  moil  so  perpetually  :  you  have 
time  to  improve  your  higher  nature :  even  before  the 
bread  for  your  bodies  and  for  the  mouths  of  your 
children,  you  are  to  seek  the  kingdom  of  God  and 
His  righteousness.  His  was  not  a  gospel  of  meat  » 


understand  anoXecras  of  a  total,  and  {lyucddeis  of  a  partial  loss  : 
*  And  lose,  or  receive  damage  in,  his  own  self.’  ”  This  is  expanded 
by  Bruce,  in  his  own  racy,  pithy  style,  in  The  Expositoi''s  Gi'eek 
Testament :  “  The  idea  expressed  by  the  second  participle  seems 
to  be,  that,  even  though  it  does  not  come  to  absolute  loss,  yet  if 
gaining  the  world  involve  damage  to  the  self,  the  moral  person¬ 
ality — taint,  lowering  of  the  tone,  vulgarising  of  the  soul — we 
lose  much  more  than  we  gain.” 


88 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


and  drink,  of  loaves  and  fishes,  of  better  clothes  and 
better  houses  ;  yet  well  did  He  know  that  all  these 
things  would  follow  in  their  own  order :  “  All  these  } 
things  shall  be  added  unto  you.”  Let  the  spiritual 
nature  be  awakened,  and  the  whole  environment  will 
be  transformed  as  a  matter  of  course. 

In  studying  deeply  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  it  is  often 
startling  to  note  how  He  anticipated  the  ideas  of 
modern  times.  This  thought,  for  example,  that  the 
prime  vocation  of  every  man  is  to  be  himself — all  that 
his  Maker  intended  him  to  be,  all  that  the  original 
make  of  his  faculties  renders  it  possible  for  him  to 
become — is  one  of  the  most  potent  conceptions  of 
modern  ethical  speculation.  The  German  poet  and 
philosopher,  Goethe,  especially  constituted  himself  its 
apostle,  considering  it,  however,  to  be  an  original 
thought  of  his  own.  His  watchword  was  Culture — a 
.  word  which  he  has  made  a  shibboleth  among  the 
educated  of  his  countrymen — and  by  culture  he  meant 
nothing  else  than  that  which  I  have  been  expounding 
— that  every  man  comes  into  the  world  capable  of 
being,  not  a  nonentity,  but  a  man  of  a  certain  inward 
stature ;  and  his  primary  duty,  which  eclipses  all 
others,  is  to  be  this  man.  To  this  Goethe  consecrated 
his  own  life,  and  he  even  sacrificed  to  it  the  lives 
of  others  ;  for  he  was  of  opinion  that  these  had  not 
lived  in  vain  if  they  had  contributed  to  his  develop¬ 
ment.  In  our  own  country  the  same  ideas  have 
been  circulated  in  the  writings  of  Matthew  Arnold, 


MISSING  THE  HIGHEST  GOOD  *  89 

George  Eliot,  and  other  disciples  of  Goethe ;  and 
culture  is  a  shibboleth  among  us  too.  Between  the 

moral  teaching  of  such  authors  and  that  of  Jesus 

*  ... 

there  is  a  close  resemblance.  The  difference  will  lie 

in  the  disparity  between  their  ideal  man  and  the 
figure  indicated  in  such  a  phrase  as  that  already 
quoted — “  rich  towards  God  ” — or  in  the  precept, 
“Seek  first  the  kingdom  of  God  and  His  righteous¬ 
ness.”  To  these  modern  moralists  the  measure  of 
the  man  is  intellect ;  to  Jesus  it  was  spiritual  power. 

j. 

A  second  sense  in  which  the  end  of  life  may  be 
missed  is  suggested  by  the  translation  of  His  famous 
warning  with  the  word  “  life.”  And  this  also  brings 
us  right  into  the  midst  of  many  of  the  most  character¬ 
istic  thoughts  of  Jesus. 

The  most  literal  meaning  of  losing  one’s  life  is,  of 
course,  dying  by  accident ;  and  there  may  be  circum¬ 
stances  in  which  Christ’s  warning,  so  read,  has  a 
tragic  significance :  if  a  man  loses  his  life  by  accident, 
what  is  the  whole  world  to  him  ?  He  is  snatched 
away  out  of  it ;  and  all  his  toil  and  trouble,  in 
winning  for  himself  a  footing  and  a  place  in  it,  are 
in  vain.  But  it  was  something  more  characteristic 
that  Jesus  put  into  the  phrase.  Life  is  the  oppor¬ 
tunity  of  doing  a  life-work.  Not  only  has  the  Creator 
appointed  to  every  human  being,  in  the  constitution 
of  his  manhood,  a  certain  stature  to  which  he  may 
•  and  ought  to  attain  ;  but  He  has  appointed  a  corre- 


90 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


sponding  task  for  him  to  fulfil,  determined  by  the 
providential  circumstances  in  which  he  is  placed.  In 
fact,  this  is  his  life ;  and  not  to  fulfil  this  God- 
appointed  purpose  of  his  existence  is  to  lose  his 
life — a  calamity  for  which  the  gaining  of  the  whole 
world  would  be  no  compensation. 

This  idea  lay  near  to  the  heart  of  Jesus,  first  of 
all,  in  relation  to  Himself.  He  thoroughly  realised, 
from  first  to  last,  that  He  had  a  work  to  do,  so 
accurately  arranged  and  fitted  to  the  length  of  His 
life  that  every  hour  had  its  own  part  of  the  whole 
to  clear  off,  and  He  was  not  allowed  either  to 
anticipate  or  lag  behind.  This  consciousness  is  far 
more  frequently,  indeed,  expressed  in  St.  John,  the 
Gospel  of  the  interior  life  of  our  Lord,  than  in  the 
Synoptists ;  but  we  have  it  in  them  too,  as,  for 
example,  in  His  saying  when  Herod  sent  to  threaten 
Him,  “Go  ye  and  tell  that  fox,  Behold,  I  cast  out 
devils  to-day  and  to-morrow,  and  the  third  day  I 
shall  be  perfected.  Nevertheless  I  must  walk  to-day 
and  to-morrow  and  the  day  following :  for  it  cannot 
be  that  a  prophet  perish  out  of  Jerusalem.”  It  is 
expressed  also  in  the  utterance  emitted  on  the  last 
journey  to  Jerusalem,  when  He  was  going  before  the 
disciples  in  such  a  rapt  state  of  mind  that,  as  they 
followed,  they  were  afraid  :  “  I  have  a  baptism  to  be 
baptized  with,  and  how  am  I  straitened  till  it  be 
accomplished.”  To  everyone  His  saying  at  the 
age  of  twelve  will  occur  as  the  motto  of  His  whole 


MISSING  THE  HIGHEST  GOOD 


9i 


life,  “  Wist  ye  not  that  I  must  be  about  My  Father’s 
business  ” ;  but  this  is  one  of  the  cases  in  which 
exegetic  conscientiousness  compels  us  to  forego  a 
tempting  proof-text,  because,  in  my  opinion,  its  un¬ 
doubted  and  only  meaning  is,  “Wist  ye  not  that  I 
must  be  in  My  Father’s  house?” 

In  many  different  forms; *  the  variety  of  which 
betrays  the  hold  they  had  on  His  mind,  He  gave 
expression  to  this  danger  in  reference  to  others.  It 
will  be  remembered  how  frequently  He  represented 
this  life  as  a  trust  or  stewardship,  for  which  an 
account  would  have  to  be  rendered  by  and  by.  The 
Author  of  man’s  existence  is  like  a  proprietor  going 
on  a  journey  to  a  far  country,  who  gives  to  his 
servants  their  work  to  do  in  his  absence  and  will, 
at  his  return,  hold  a  strict  reckoning  with  them  all. 
He  distributes  to  his  servants  so  many  pounds,  and 
says,  “  Occupy  till  I  come.”  On  one  occasion  Jesus 
manifested  extraordinary  irritation,  for  which  some 
have  taken  it  upon  themselves  to  censure  Him,  at 
the  sight  of  a  tree  that  was  barren  ;  but  this  was 
a  manifestation  of  an  impatience,  which  beset  Him 
always,  with  objects  that  were  not  answering  the 
end  of  their  existence,  and  especially  with  human 
lives  which  were  failing  to  yield  to  man  and  God 


*  Compare  the  logion  attributed  to  Jesus,  in  St.  Matthew’s 
Gospel,  Codex  C,  Palestinian  Syriac  Library :  “And  I  say  unto 
you,  that  men  must  give  an  account  of  every  good  word  which 
they  shall  not  speak.” 


92 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


the  fruit  which  might  have  been  expected  from 
them.  To  this  sentiment  He  gave  expression  in  the 
solemn  parable  of  the  Fig-tree  planted  in  a  Vineyard, 
which,  indeed,  referred  in  the  first  place  to  the  Jewish 
nation  but  has,  at  the  same  time,  an  application  to 
the  individual ;  for  the  principle  is  the  same ;  and  it 
is  this,  that,  seeing  the  Creator  never  makes  anything 
without  a  purpose,  any  created  thing  which  fails  in 
this  respect  is  contemptible.* 


To  lose  the  “soul  ”  is  the  third  form  in  which  the 
danger  is  threatened  ;  and  this  is  the  form  in  which 
the  solemn  saying  of  our  Lord  is  oftenest  quoted. 
The  meaning  usually  attached  to  it  relates  to  the 
life  to  come — to  the  possibility  of  missing  one’s 
destiny  there.  In  fixing  on  this  as  the  sole  reference 
of  this  phrase,  Evangelism  has  omitted  much  of  the 
thought  of  Christ,  as  has  been  shown  in  the  preceding 
paragraphs,  yet  it  cannot  be  denied  that  it  has 

*  It  may  be  thought  that  the  word  which  is  the  one  used 
when  Jesus  is  speaking  of  the  possibility  of  losing  our  life,  is  too 
slight  to  bear  all  the  weight  here  put  on  it.  But,  if  so,  Jesus 
employs  the  other  and  much  more  significant  term,  £cdi)  ( e.g . 
Luke  xii.  15),  for  the  end  of  life,  substituting  it  now  and  then  for 
other  terms  signifying  man’s  chief  end  ;  and  far)  certainly  includes 
all  that  I  have  put  into  the  other  term,  and  more.  Zcor  is  life 
potentiated  with  all  that  makes  it  worth  living  and  filled  with  all 
that  makes  it  valuable  to  God  as  well  as  to  ourselves ;  and  to 
miss  such  life  is  “death”  in  a  sense  equally  profound,  but 
recognised  in  all  parts  of  Scripture,  New  Testament  and  Old 
alike. 


MISSING  THE  HIGHEST  GOOD 


emphasized  what  is  the  most  appalling  feature  of 
the  threatened  danger.  The  loss  of  oneself  in  the 
sense  already  explained — of  missing  one’s  opportuni¬ 
ties  of  moral  and  spiritual  development,  or  of  failing 
to  accomplish  the  task  which  one  has  been  born 
to  accomplish — may  end  in  the  loss  of  the  “soul” 
in  the  awful  sense  of  being  cast  away  forever. 

On  this  solemn  subject  the  teaching  of  our  Lord 
is  extraordinarily  copious  ;  indeed,  it  is  to  Him — and 
one  might  also  say,  to  Him  alone — that  the  popular 
conceptions  about  a  Day  of  Judgment  and  the  re¬ 
tributions  of  a  future  existence  are  due.  Not  only 
did  He  adopt  these  conceptions,  but  he  allowed 
His  imagination  to  play  about  them,  till  they  were 
adorned  with  those  realistic  and  pictorial  touches 
which  have  made  an  ineffaceable  impression  on  the 
mind  of  every  age. 

The  idea  of  a  general  judgment  must,  one  would 
suppose,  have  been  a  current  one  in  the  popular 
theology;  because  He  refers  to  it  as  “that  day,” 
taking  it  for  granted  apparently  that  it  was  familiar 
to  every  hearer  as  the  one  day  that  mattered  among 
all  the  days.  At  other  times  He  gave  to  it  its 
full  title  of  “  the  day  of  judgment,”  or  the  abbreviated 
designation  of  the  “judgment.”  The  grandiose  scene, 
which  so  captivated  the  fancy  of  the  mediaeval  artists, 
is  all  His — the  rending  heavens  and  the  glory  in  the 
clouds  ;  the  procession  of  angels  from  the  open  sky, 
with  the  Judge  n  the  midst,  shining  with  unspeakable 


94 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


glory  ;  the  terror,  trembling,  and  loud  wailing  of  the 
unprepared  ;  the  angels  moving  hither  and  thither 
through  the  innumerable  multitude  and  severing  the 
wicked  from  among  the  just ;  the  judgment  set  and 
the  presentation  of  everyone  to  be  examined  in  the 
audience  of  all ;  then,  the  separation  into  two  great 
companies,  on  the  right  and  the  left ;  the  sentence 
of  the  blessed,  pronounced  in  accents  of  divine 
welcome,  and  that  on  the  lost,  uttered  in  tones  of 
angry  thunder ;  then,  the  passing  away  of  the  visible 
heavens  and  earth,  as  the  one  company  depart  to 
their  doom,  and  the  other,  with  Christ  and  the  angels 
at  their  head,  disappear  through  the  everlasting  gates 
into  the  place  of  felicity. 

Of  heaven  there  has  been  occasion  to  speak  already ; 
but  of  the  place  of  woe  Jesus  spoke  still  more 
frequently.  Two  representations  seem  to  struggle 
with  each  other  in  His  words.  On  the  one  hand, 
it  is  a  furnace  of  fire,  the  Gehenna  of  fire  ;  on  the 
other,  it  is  a  place  of  pitchy  darkness,  through  which 
are  heard,  without  interval  or  relief,  sounds  of  weep¬ 
ing,  wailing  and  gnashing  of  teeth.  Only  one  more 
trait  is  needed  to  complete  the  terror  of  the  picture  : 
it  is  the  abode  of  the  devil  and  his  angels,  for  whom 
it  was  prepared.  The  most  detailed  and  graphic 
representation  is  in  the  parable  of  the  Rich  Man 
and  Lazarus — if,  indeed,  that  be  a  parable.  The 
rich  man  is  not  only  tormented  in  flame,  so  that 
he  prays  in  agony  for  a  drop  of  water  to  cool  his 


MISSING  THE  HIGHEST  GOOD 


95 


tongue,  but  his  suffering  and  despair  are  increased 
tenfold  by  the  sight  of  the  felicity  of  the  beggar, 
whom  he  had  despised  and  neglected,  now  in 
Abraham’s  bosom.*  Properly  speaking,  this  is  a 
representation  of  the  condition  of  the  lost  before  the 
judgment-day  ;  but  there  can  be  little  risk  in  accept¬ 
ing  it  as  true  of  the  state  of  the  same  persons  after 
that  event. 

Two  ways  have  been  suggested  of  escaping  the 
apparent  conclusions  to  be  drawn  from  these  words 
of  the  Saviour.  The  one  is  to  suppose  that  He  took 
over  this  portion  of  His  teaching  from  the  popular 
religion  of  His  time  f  ;  and  the  other  that  the  whole 
is  figurative. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that,  in  some  of  its  features, 
the  representation  of  the  other  world  in  the  teaching 
of  Jesus  can  be  matched  with  quotations  from  the 
apocryphal  books  belonging  to  the  period  between 
the  Old  Testament  and  the  New.  During  that  period 
the  conceptions  of  the  other  world,  which  are  very 
elementary  in  the  Old  Testament,  had  been  matur¬ 
ing,  the  germs  growing  to  developed  doctrines.  But 
the  teaching  of  Jesus  is  far  more  rounded  and  self- 
consistent  ;  and  it  has  every  m?rkolqf  originality. 
Jesus  never  gropes  or  hesitates,  as  all  who  had  gone 

*  Reclining  there,  as  St.  John  did  on  Jesus’  bosom  at  the  Last 
Supper.  Lazarus  is  at  a  heavenly  banquet. 

t  This  assumption  is  made  by  Wendt,  The  Teaching  of  Jesus% 
with  great  frequency. 


96 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


before  Him  had  done,  when  speaking  on  this  sub¬ 
ject  :  He  speaks  as  one  who  has  seen  what  he 
describes.  Is  it  conceivable  that  this  was  a  subject 
on  which  He  could  take  over  the  ideas  of  the  popular 
faith  without  making  Himself  responsible  for  them  ? 
If  a  religious  teacher  is  responsible  for  anything,  one 
would  suppose  it  would  be  for  such  statements  as  these. 
It  may  be  convenient  to  have  a  receptacle  into 
which  to  cast  any  elements  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus 
which  may  seem  to  be  obnoxious,  and  so  get  rid  of 
them  ;  but,  when  exegesis,  by  such  devices,  deprives 
of  all  effect  words  which  their  Author  obviously  in¬ 
tended  to  impress  and  arrest,  and  which  have,  in 
point  of  fact,  solemnised  all  generations  which  have 
read  them  with  an  open  mind,  it  may  be  questioned 
whether  it  deserves  the  name  of  learning. 

As  for  the  words  being  figurative,  there  can  be  no 
reasonable  doubt  that  they  are  in  the  highest  degree 
figurative.  And  it  is  a  sound  canon  of  exegesis  that 
parables  ought  not  to  be  used  as  proof-texts.*  This 
is,  however,  a  rule  which  can  be  grossly  abused.  The 
idea  that  definite  truth  is  never  taught  in  figura¬ 
tive  language  is  one  which  can  only  be  maintained 
for  a  purpose.  For  all  fair  minds  the  drift  of 
figurative  language  is  frequently  as  unquestionable 
as  that  of  the  plainest  prose.  In  the  parable  just 
quoted,  for  example,  Abraham  says  to  the  rich  man, 
“  Between  us  and  you  there  is  a  great  gulf  fixed ; 


*  “  Theologici  Jarcibolica  non  est  demonstratives? 


MISSING  THE  HIGHEST  GOOD 


97 


so  that  they  which  would  pass  from  hence  to  you 
cannot ;  neither  can  they  pass  to  us  that  would  come 
from  thence  ”  ;  and  I  should  say  that  the  doctrinal 
effect  of  this  statement  is  as  obvious  as  that  of  a 
mathematical  proposition.* 

On  this  problem  of  the  endlessness  of  punishment, 
there  are  some  words  of  Jesus  which  have  been 
quoted  in  favour  of  the  view  that  the  fire  of  Gehenna 
is  disciplinary,  and  that,  when  it  has  done  its  work, 
the  prisoners  of  God  will  be  led  forth  from  it  purified, 
and  admitted  to  the  fellowship  of  the  blessed.  Such, 
for  example,  is  the  following :  “  That  servant  which 
knew  his  Lord’s  will  and  prepared  not  himself  shall 
be  beaten  with  many  stripes,  but  he  that  knew  not 
and  did  commit  things  worthy  of  stripes  shall  be 
beaten  with  few  stripes.”  This  might  mean  that, 

*  Philippson,  in  his  Religion  oj  Israel ,  says  :  “  The  Rabbis  do 
not  believe  in  the  eternity  ot  future  punishments ;  even  the 
greatest  sinners  are  punished  only  for  generations.  They  ex¬ 
press  this  figuratively  by  saying  that  between  hell  and  paradise 
there  is  only  the  breadth  ot  a  couple  of  fingers;  so  that  it  is 
very  easy  for  the  penitent  sinner  to  pass  out  of  the  one  into  the 
other.”  Similarly,  as  we  learn  from  Eisenmenger,  the  distance 
between  hell  and  heaven  is,  according  to  Johannan,  only  a  wall, 
and,  according  to  Acha,  a  palm ;  according  to  other  Rabbis  only 
a  finger.  In  recent  controversies  such  passages  have  been 
cited  triumphantly  as  it  they  were  weighty  contributions  to  one 
of  the  sides  ;  but  is  it  not  evident  that,  if  such  notions  are  older 
than  Christ,  His  language  in  the  parable  is  an  express  contra¬ 
diction  ot  them,  and  that,  if  His  teaching  is  the  elder,  the 
rabbinic  expressions  were  deliberately  framed  in  contradiction 
of  His  ? 


7 


98 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


after  the  few  stripes  are  exhausted,  the  servant  will 
be  restored  to  his  place  in  the  house  ;  but  it  may 
only  indicate  that  there  will  be  degrees  of  punish¬ 
ment,  without  saying  anything  about  its  duration. 
The  parable  of  the  Unmerciful  Servant  ends  with 
the  words,  “  His  Lord  was  wroth  and  delivered  him 
to  the  tormentors,  till  he  should  pay  all  that  was  due 
unto  him,”  which,  it  has  been  argued,  contemplates  a 
date,  however  distant,  when  the  debt  will  all  be 
liquidated.  But,  as  the  debt  is  put  down  in  the 
parable  as  ten  thousand  talents — two  million  pounds 
— and  the  imprisoned  servant  is  penniless,  the 
encouragement  afforded  by  this  saying  is  but  faint. 
There  remains  the  well-known  saying  about  the  sin 
against  the  Holy  Ghost :  “  Whosoever  speaketh  a 
word  against  the  Son  of  Man,  it  shall  be  forgiven 
him,  but  whosoever  speaketh  against  the  Holy 
Ghost,  it  shall  not  be  forgiven  him,  neither  in  this 
world,  neither  in  the  world  to  come.”  This  might 
mean  that  there  is  to  be  forgiveness  of  certain  sins 
in  the  world  to  come  ;  but,  as  it  asserts  that  the  sins 
of  some  persons  at  all  events  will  not  be  forgiven 
even  there,  the  real  crux  still  remains. 

On  behalf  of  the  other  alternative  to  eternal  punish¬ 
ment — that,  namely,  _of  conditional  immortality — a 
much  larger  number  of  texts  can  be  quoted  from  the 
sayings  of  Jesus  the  mere  words  of  which  might 
mean  the  total  extinction  of  the  wicked ;  because 
Jesus,  in  accordance  with  the  general  tenor  of 


MISSING  THE  HIGHEST  GOOD 


99 


Scripture,  does  speak  of  the  wicked  being  destroyed, 
ground  to  powder,  and  the  like.  Such  terms  might 
mean  extinction,  but  also  they  might  not.  For 
example,  Jesus  says,  in  one  of  His  parables,  “The 
Lord  of  that  servant  shall  come  in  a  day  when  he 
looketh  not  for  him,  and  in  an  hour  that  he  is  not 
aware  of,  and  shall  cut  him  asunder”;  no  image 
could  more  realistically  express  destruction  ;  but 
what  follows  ?  “  And  appoint  him  his  portion  with 

the  hypocrites  ;  there  shall  be  weeping  and  gnashing 
of  teeth.”  The  .  strong  point  of  the  theory  of  Con¬ 
ditional  Immortality  is  the  denial  of  natural  immor¬ 
tality.  I  am  not  sure  if  there  be  any  explicit 
statement  of  Jesus  on  this  point  ;  but  one  thing  may 
be  remarked :  this  view,  if  accepted,  would  bring 
man’s  natural  dignity  far  down  beneath  the  level  of 
even  the  nobler  heathen  systems,  whereas  the  whole 
tendency  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  was  to  place  it 
higher  than  it  had  ever  been  placed  before.  Does  not 
the  denial  of  natural  immortality  take  the  greatness 
out  of  such  a  saying  as  “  What  shall  it  profit  a  man 
if  he  gain  the  whole  world  and  lose  his  own  soul  ”  ? 

The  truth  on  this  solemn  and  mysterious  subject 
seems  to  be  as  follows  :  Jesus  frequently  divide 
human  history  into  two  portions — “  this  aeon  ”  or 
world,  and  “  that  aeon  ”  or  world.  “  This  aeon  ”  is  a 
time  of  probation,  of  opportunity,  of  change ;  but 
“  that  aeon  ”  appears  in  Christ’s  words  as  a  vast  level 
plain,  stretching  away  on  the  farther  side  of  the 


IOO 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


judgment-day,  on  the  surface  of  which,  as  far  as  the 
eye  can  reach,  there  is  no  change  whatever.  “  Dispen¬ 
sation  ”  would  be  a  translation  of  “  ason  ”  correspond¬ 
ing  exactly  to  the  idea  of  Jesus.  Now,  He  knows 
only  the  two  dispensations — this  one,  extending  to 
the  judgment-day,  and  that  one,  extending  beyond 
it.  What  belongs  to  the  aeon  beyond  the  judgment- 
day  is,  in  His  vocabulary,  emphatically  termed  ever¬ 
lasting  or  eternal  *  ;  and  this  term  He  applies  to  both 
the  life  of  the  righteous  and  the  punishment  of  the 
wicked.  If  there  is  to  be  a  third  aeon,  supervening 
in  a  future  yet  more  distant,  the  eye  of  Jesus  did 
not  see  so  far,  or,  if  He  saw,  He  did  not  speak  ; 
and  it  will  be  wise  in  us  to  follow  His  example.f 


*  altovLov. 

t  My  late  beloved  colleague,  Principal  Salmond,  in  his 
standard  work,  The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Immortality ,  after  a 
thorough  examination  of  the  whole  teaching  of  Jesus  as  to  His 
Return,  the  General  Judgment,  the  Resurrection,  the  Inter¬ 
mediate  State,  the  Final  Destinies,  sums  up  as  follows  on  this 
particular  point :  “  Christ’s  own  teaching,  we  must  conclude, 
gives  the  significance  of  finality  to  the  moral  decision  of  the 
present  life.  If  there  are  possibilities  of  change,  forgiveness,  re¬ 
laxation  ot  penalty,  or  cessation  of  punishment  in  the  future  life, 
His  words  at  least  do  not  reveal  them.  He  never  softens  the 
awful  responsibilities  of  this  life,  even  by  the  dim  adumbration 
of  such  possibilities.  His  recorded  sayings  nowhere  suggest  the 
provision  of  ministries  oi  grace,  whether  new  or  continued,  in 
the  after-existence.  They  nowhere  speak  of  a  place  of  repent¬ 
ance  unto  life  in  the  other  world.  They  nowhere  open  the 
prospect  of  remedial  discipline  in  the  disembodied  state,  or 
of  terminable  award  in  the  condition  which  follows  the  great 
day.  They  bring  the  two  events,  death  and  judgment,  into 


MISSING  THE  HIGHEST  GOOD 


ioi 


On  nearly  every  aspect  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus 
there  can  be  found  among  His  words  a  locus  classicus , 
to  which  it  is  the  duty  of  an  expositor  to  direct 
special  attention  ;  and  on  the  subject  of  the  present 
chapter  there  is  one  long  passage  wholly  taken  up 
with  the  thoughts  just  developed  ;  where,  also,  they 
occur  in  the  same  order  as  has  here  been  followed. 
In  the  twenty-fifth  of  St.  Matthew  there  are  three 
successive  parables — the  Ten  Virgins,  the  Talents 
and  the  Last  Judgment — in  which  we  have  three 
aspects  of  the  divine  estimate  of  human  life.  They 


relation,  and  give  no  disclosure  of  an  intermediate  state  with 
untold  potentialities  of  divine  love  and  human  surrender.  They 
never  traverse  the  principle  that  this  life  is  the  scene  of  oppor¬ 
tunity,  and  this  world  the  theatre  of  human  fates  ”  (p.  392). 
“  Such,”  he  concludes,  “  is  the  testimony  which  an  unprejudiced 
exegesis  has  to  offer”  (p.  393);  but  he  finally  adds  (p.394): 
“  Yet  Christ’s  words  are  words  of  grace,  and  His  doctrine  is  a 
revelation  of  life.” 

Strikingly  similar  are  the  words  of  another  scholar  :  “  What¬ 
ever  God’s  hidden  purpose  of  mercy  may  conceivably  be,  His 
revealed  purpose  is  clear — He  will  judge  men  according  to  their 
works.  The  New  Testament  states  no  limitation  to  the  doctrine 
of  our  probation.  It  remains  a  glorious  if  an  awful  truth.  The 
infinite  gulf  between  right  and  wrong  would  be  hidden  if  we 
ceased  to  think  of  the  infinite  contrast  between  heaven  and  the 
outer  darkness.” — Mackintosh’s  Christia?i  Ethics.  This  is  the 
latest  among  the  books  on  Christian  Ethics  which,  in  the  scarcity 
ot  large  ones,  to  match  the  Continental  works,  our  native 
theology  can  boast  of,  as  being,  though  small  in  bulk,  not  smal 
in  value.  Amongst  others  may  be  mentioned  Dr.  Cameron 
Lees’  Life  and  Conduct ,  Dr.  W.  L.  Davidson’s  Christian  Ethics) 
and  Dr.  Kilpatrick’s  Christian  Character. 


102 


TI1E  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


exhibit,  at  the  same  time,  the  three  principles  on 
which  the  grand  assize  will  be  conducted  ;  for  there 
is  no  point  of  view  from  which  the  divine  method 
of  estimating  human  life  can  be  more  clearly  seen 
than  the  judgment-seat. 

The  parable  of  the  Ten  Virgins,  in  spite  of  its 
movement  and  variety,  is  intended  to  illustrate  only 
a  single  point  of  truth — namely,  that  it  is  fatal  to  live 
in  this  life  without  preparation  for  the  life  to  come. 
The  want  of  oil  is  the  centre  round  which  all  turns. 
Many  opinions  have  been  started  as  to  what  the  oil 
is — Catholics  maintaining  it  to  stand  for  good  works 
and  Protestants  for  justification  by  faith — but  it  is 
more  simple  and  general  than  any  of  these :  it  is 
merely  this,  that  there  must  be  preparation,  the 
nature  of  the  preparation  being  left  for  subsequent 
definition.  This,  as  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  as  well 
as  the  experience  of  every  age,  shows,  is  the  standing 
mistake  of  the  human  race — to  live  as  if  they  were 
to  live  here  always,  and  forget  the  future  and  their 
own  high  destiny.  In  short,  it  is  the  tendency  which, 
as  has  been  shown  in  this  chapter,  Jesus  tried  to 
correct  in  the  poor  and  the  rich  alike  of  His  time — 
to  miss  being  the  men  and  women  they  might  be, 
and  to  sink  into  nonentities.  This  rustic  mistake  is 
represented  by  making  the  delinquents  young  girls  : 
they  are  the  “  foolish,”  not  the  wicked  virgins ;  yet 
they  are  shut  out.  No  excuse  will  be  accepted  for 
missing  the  end  of  existence. 


MISSING  THE  HIGHEST  GOOD 


103 


In  the  parable  of  the  Talents  we  have  the  most 
perfect  expression  of  the  danger  of  leaving  undone 
the  work  of  life.  The  man  with  one  talent  had  not 
fulfilled  his  task.  This  is  the  only  delinquency 
imputed  to  him.  Indeed,  Jesus  piles  up  the  points 
in  his  favour,  as  if  for  the  very  purpose  of  exciting 
sympathy  on  his  behalf :  he  had  only  one  talent ; 
he  did  not  squander  it,  as  many  do  ;  his  reason  for 
not  trading  with  it  was  the  modest  one  that  he 
distrusted  his  own  capacities :  in  trade  he  might 
have  lost  his  talent,  but  he  brings  it  back  safe  to 
his  master,  who  at  any  rate  should  be  no  loser 
through  him.  Nevertheless,  with  everything  in  his 
favour,  except  the  one  charge,  that  he  had  done 
nothing,  the  man  with  the  one  talent  was  cast  into 
the  outer  darkness.  Jesus  insists  on  a  positive 
morality,  He  will  not  be  satisfied  with  negatives. 

The  third  parable — that  of  the  Last  Judgment — 
is  the  most  detailed  description  in  existence  of  this 
magnificent  spectacle ;  but  the  very  point  of  the 
moral  teaching  of  Jesus  in  it  is  frequently  missed. 
When  the  wicked  are  accused  of  failing  to  feed  the 
judge  when  He  was  hungry,  to  clothe  Him  when 
He  was  naked,  and  to  visit  Him  when  He  was  in 
prison,  they  ask  in  astonishment  when  it  was  that 
hey  had  failed  to  do  any  of  these  things.  But  their 
astonishment  was  only  feigned  ;  of  course  they  were 
aware  that  the  accusation  was  true  ?  So,  I  believe, 
the  scene  is  usually  understood.  But  this  is  a  mis- 


104 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


take.  The  point  is  that  they  are  genuinely  and 
unaffectedly  astonished.  They  are  not  aware  that 
they  have  done  what  they  are  accused  of,  and  they 
are  virtuously  indignant  at  being  condemned  for 
crimes  they  have  never  committed.  Had  it  been 
one  so  distinguished  as  Jesus  they  were  invited  to 
succour,  they  would  have  been  delighted  to  do  so ; 
but  the  cases  they  neglected  were  those  of  a  few 
beggars,  children,  old  women  ;  and  now  Jesus  says, 
“  I  was  in  everyone  of  these,  and  in  them  ye  neg¬ 
lected  Me.”  What  a  moralist !  What  a  height  and 
what  a  breadth  in  His  commandment !  While  the 
question  of  Moral  Philosophy  is,  What  must  we  do? 
is  it  not  evident  that  the  question  of  Christian 
philosophy  must  be  the  far  deeper  one,  What  must 
we  do  to  be  saved  ? 


SIN 


Matt.  v.  21,  27,  33,  47;  ix.  13;  x.  6;  xv.  24;  xviii.  12-14,  17,  24; 
xxi.  31. 

Mark  ii.  14-17  ;  iii-  28,  29  ;  vii.  20-23. 

Luke  v.  27-32  ;  vi.  32-34;  vii.  36-50;  xv.  1 1-32;  xviii.  1 1  ;  xix.  i-io; 
xxi.  34. 

Matt.  v.  20;  vi.  1-18;  ix.  4,  12,  13;  xv.  3-9,  13,  14;  xvi.  1-6; 
xxi.  28-32  ;  xxii.  18  ;  xxiii.  2-39. 

Mark  ii.  17  ;  iii.  1-6,  22-30;  vii.  I-13  ;  viii.  1 1  - 15  ;  xii.  I-44. 

Luke  v.  27-32  ;  vi.  6-11  ;  xi.  37-54;  xii.  1  ;  xiii.  10-17  ;  xv.  25-32; 

xviii.  9-14;  xx.  9-19,  23,  45-47. 

Matt.  vi.  19-24;  xvi.  6,  11  ;  xix.  21-26  ;  xxi.  13. 

Mark  viii.  15  ;  xi.  15-18,  27-33  ;  xii.  18-27  >  xiv.  55-65. 

Luke  viii.  1-14;  x.  31,  32;  xii.  16-21;  xiv.  15-24;  xvii.  27,  28; 
xviii.  1-8  ;  xix.  46  ;  xx.  27-38. 

Matt.  v.  10-12,  13,  19-48;  vi.  12,  13,  15;  vii.  1,  11,  23;  ix.  2,  12; 

x.  14,  16,  17,  22,  25,  33;  xi.  16-19,  21-24;  xii.  7,  30,  31-37, 

39-45;  xiii.  13,  15,  19,  25,  38,  41,  48;  xiv.  31;  xv.  18-20; 
xvi.  23  ;  xvii.  12,  17,  23;  xviii.  10,  11,  12,  15,  17,  24;  xx.  18, 
19  ;  xxiv.  12,  48,  49 ;  xxv.  1-46  ;  xxvi.  2,  21,  23,  28,  34,  45,  46. 

Mark  ii.  5  ;  iii.  28,  29  ;  iv.  12  ;  vii.  21-23 ;  viii.  33  ;  ix.  12,  31 ;  x.  19, 
33,  34;  xi.  26  ;  xii.  3,  8.  10;  xiii.  6,  13,  36;  xiv.  18,  21,  30,  41. 

Luke  iv.  24;  v.  18-26;  vi.  27-35,  39-49;  vii.  S1^0 ;  xi-  37'54  5 
xii.  15  ;  xiii.  1-5,  6-9,  27  ;  xv.  13,  30,  32  ;  xvii.  25  ;  xviii.  32,  33  ; 
xxi.  8  ;  xxii.  21,  22,  34,  40,  48,  52,  53. 


CHAPTER  VI. 


SIN 

IN  Palestine  in  the  days  of  our  Lord  there  were 
three  notorious  forms  of  sin,  each  of  which  lay 
like  a  burden  on  His  spirit,  till  He  relieved  Himself 
in  words.  These  may  be  denominated  the  Sin  of  the 
publican,  the  Sin  of  the  Pharisee,  and  the  Sin  of  the 
Sadducee. 


The  Sin  of  the  Publican 

In  every  country  there  is  a  lost  class,  the  pecu¬ 
liarity  of  which  is  that  it  has  given  way  to  the 
appetites  of  the  flesh  to  such  a  degree  that  its  sin 
can  no  longer  be  concealed.  What  others  do  by 
stealth  and  in  secret,  if  they  do  it  at  all,  the  members 
of  this  class  do  openly  in  public,  either  defying 
public  opinion  or  being  too  destitute  of  self-control 
to  be  able  to  hide  their  weakness.  In  our  own 
country,  as  is  well  known,  there  exists  at  present 
such  a  class  of  formidable  dimensions,  characterized 
by  many  designations,  such  as  “  the  lapsed  masses,” 
“  the  submerged  tenth,”  “  the  residuum,”  and  so  forth. 
Its  members  have  fallen  away  from  connection  with 


107 


io8 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


the  Church  and  from  the  habits  of  respectable  society; 
it  is  by  them  that  the  police  are  kept  busy  and  the 
prisons  full  ;  and  to  them  is  due  the  difficulty  of 
solving  such  a  problem  as  the  housing  of  the  poor  ; 
but  the  principal  mark  of  the  whole  class  is  that 
it  is  sodden  through  and  through  with  strong  drink. 
Such  a  class  existed  in  Palestine  in  the  time  of  our 
Lord,  and  it  plays  a  prominent  part  in  the  Gospels, 
where  those  composing  it  appear  under  such  desig¬ 
nations  as  “  publicans  and  sinners,”  “  publicans  and 
harlots,”  “  the  lost*  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel.” 
As  this  last  name  indicates,  they  were  those  who 
had  broken  through  the  fences  of  religion  and  social 
observance  by  which  Jewish  life  was  regulated  and 
distinguished  from  the  world  at  large,  thus  allowing 
themselves  to  become  a  reproach  and  a  menace  to 
all  by  whom  these  barriers  were  respected.  So  far 
had  the  publicans  gone  in  defiance  of  traditional 
custom  and  national  feeling  as  to  sell  themselves 
to  the  foreign  power  by  which  the  country 
was  held  in  servitude.  They  were,  accordingly, 
looked  upon  as  having  forfeited  their  nationality 
and  gone  over  to  the  pagans ;  and  the  very  worst 
that  could  be  said  of  any  man  was  that  he  was 
“  an  heathen  man  and  a  publican.” 

The  attitude  of  Jesus  to  this  class  was  one  of 

*  Connect  this  term  “  lost,”  which  is  extremely  characteristic 
of  the  preaching  of  Jesus,  with  the  word  “  lose,’’  commented  on 
in  the  foregoing  chapter. 


SIN 


109 


the  most  singular  and  characteristic  features  of  His 
career  and,  when  fully  understood,  reveals  more 
clearly  perhaps  than  any  other  circumstance  the 
secret  of  His  mission. 

The  respectable  and  religious  classes  of  the  land 
had  no  doubt  what  their  attitude  to  the  publicans 
and  sinners  ought  to  be.  They  frankly  and  heartily 
detested  them,  taking  no  pains  to  conceal  their 
hostility.  They  treated  them  exactly  as,  in  the 
physical  world,  they  did  leprosy,  and  they  flattered 
themselves  that  they  had  good  reason  for  so  doing. 
Undoubtedly  the  members  of  this  class,  wherever 
it  exists,  are  infected  persons,  who  spread  moral 
contagion.  A  harlot,  for  instance,  is  a  menace  to 
every  respectable  home.  She  lives  by  corrupting 
those  of  the  opposite  sex  ;  and  what  else  can  be  so 
utter  an  insult  to  her  own  sex  as  her  trade  ?  Such 
sinners  are  infinitely  more  dangerous  than  the  small¬ 
pox  or  the  cholera.  And  they  ought  to  be  made 
sensible  of  their  degradation.  Kindness  shown  to 
them  is  unkindness  to  others  who  are  far  more 
entitled  to  consideration.  It  is  only  by  stigmatizing 
their  course  of  life  as  it  deserves  that  society  is 
able  to  prevent  others  from  adopting  it. 

Such  was  the  theory  of  the  religious  classes,  and 
it  appeared  to  be  supported  by  their  religious  books. 
In  the  Book  of  Proverbs,  for  example,  one  of  the 
principal  aims  of  which  is  to  warn  the  young  and 
inexperienced  against  evil  company  of  every  kind, 


no 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


“  the  strange  woman,”  as  she  is  there  called,  is  held 
up  to  especial  reprobation  and  contexnpt.  The 
prophets,  in  like  manner,  while  launching  their 
thunderbolts  against  every  form  of  public  iniquity, 
are  specially  severe  on  luxury  and  riot.  John 
the  Baptist,  the  last  of  the  Old  Testament  pro¬ 
phets,  attacked  the  public  iniquity  of  the  time 
in  the  plainest  of  terms,  pointing  out  to  each 
class  of  his  hearers  the  besetting  sins  which 
must  be  given  up.  In  all  ages,  indeed,  this  is  the 
rd!e  of  the  prophet,  as  we  see  in  such  modern 
instances  as  Savonarola,  Hugh  Latimer  and  John 
Knox.  In  our  own  day  many  Christian  ministers 
are  roused  to  prophetic  vehemence  by  drunkenness, 
pouring  indignant  floods  of  denunciation  not  only 
on  the  habits  of  the  people,  but  on  the  traffic  by 
which  these  are  encouraged.  With  drunkenness 
they  associate  impurity  and  gambling,  as  a  trinity 
of  evil,  against  which  the  forces  df  Christian  society 
ought  to  be  embattled,  as  being  both  dishonouring  in 
the  highest  degree  to  God  and  destructive  to  men. 

It  is  remarkable,  however,  how  little  of  His  elo¬ 
quence  Jesus  directed  against  such  carnal  and  public 
sins.  He  has  plenty  of  prophetic  indignation,  but 
it  is  reserved  for  sins  of  a  wholly  different  cast. 
And  towards  the  members  of  the  class  in  which 
these  open  sins  prevailed  He  manifested  a  surprising 
leniency,  not  to  say  partiality.  The  most  striking 
single  instance  is  that  preserved  in  the  Gospel  of 


SIN 


iii 


St.  John,  although  probably  not  recorded  by  the  pen 
of  the  Fourth  Evangelist,  of  the  woman  taken  in 
adultery,  over  whom  Jesus  cast  the  shield  of  His 
protection,  to  the  discomfiture  of  her  accusers.  But 
in  the  Synoptists  we  have  the  case  of  Zacchasus  and 
the  still  more  touching  one  of  the  Woman  who  was 
a  Sinner.  Matthew,  the  publican,  is  chosen  to  be  an 
apostle ;  and  Jesus  attends  a  feast  of  publicans, 
given  at  his  house.  So  unlike  was  the  conduct  of 
our  Lord  in  this  respect  to  that  expected  in  His 
native  country  from  a  religious  teacher,  that  it 
excited  the  most  damaging  suspicions  and  evoked 
the  most  cutting  criticisms,  although  it  is  difficult  to 
believe  that  His  enemies  were  not  consciously  lying 
when  they  characterized  Him  as  “  a  gluttonous  man 
and  a  winebibber,  a  friend  of  publicans  and  sinners.” 
Even  the  excess,  however,  of  this  accusation  shows 
how  inexplicable  His  conduct  seemed  to  His  con¬ 
temporaries. 

What  is  the  explanation  of  it  ? 

We  may  be  certain  that  it  was  not  due  to  any 
insensibility  on  His  part  to  the  wickedness  of  open 
and  carnal  sins.  It  is  impossible  to  believe  that  one 
who  loved  God  as  He  did  could  be  indifferent  to  the 
high-handed  breaking  of  the  divine  laws  ;  and  it  is 
equally  impossible  to  believe  that  one  who  loved 
man  as  He  did  could  be  tolerant  of  that  which  is  so 
infectious  and  so  deadly.  It  can  be  proved  by 
quotation  from  His  words,  that  He  appealed  to  the 


1 12 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


Ten  Commandments,  where  such  sins  are  forbidden, 
with  an  earnestness  not  less  warm  than  that  of  the 
Baptist  himself.  Against  at  least  one  public  sin 
prevalent  in  His  native  land  He  frequently  turned 
the  point  of  His  invective — the  practice  of  profane 
swearing — a  sin  treated  by  many  in  His  day,  as  it  is 
in  our  own,  with  levity,  but  which  filled  His  soul,  as 
might  have  been  expected,  with  abhorrence.  He  has 
drawn  at  least  one  full-length  picture  of  carnal  sin, 
matchless  in  its  fidelity.  This  is  in  the  parable  of 
the  Prodigal  Son.  Never  has  the  natural  history  of 
sin  been  so  realistically  depicted,  from  the  intoxi¬ 
cation  of  its  opening  to  the  misery  and  degradation 
of  its  closing  stages.  It  is  a  scene  from  real  life 
rather  than  a  parable  ;  for  there  is  not  a  town  in  the 
world  which  cannot  produce  a  story  to  match  it ;  yet, 
all  through,  there  is  the  suggestion  that  the  visible 
fall  is  not  the  worst :  the  spendthrift  loses  his  home, 
his  father,  his  means,  his  health  and  his  character  ; 
but  the  worst  loss  is  that  of  his  God  and  of  his 
destiny. 

Another  thing  of  which  we  may  be  equally  sure  is 
that  the  leniency  of  Jesus  to  this  class  of  sinners  was 
not  due  to  such  an  affinity  with  them  as  His  enemies 
attributed  to  Him.  Arguing  from  the  proverbial 
belief  that  like  draws  to  like,  they  affected  to  believe 
that  His  partiality  for  such  society  was  due  to  sym¬ 
pathy  with  their  ways  of  living.  And  this  mode  of 
interpreting  His  conduct  has  not  yet  died  out  of  the 


SIN 


ii3 

world.  There  are  at  the  present  day  litterateurs  of 
international  renown  who  seek  their  heroes  and 
heroines  among  the  outcasts  of  society,  whom  they 
invest  with  all  the  virtues  necessary  to  excite  the 
admiration  and  affection  of  their  readers.  Thieves 
are  depicted  as  miracles  of  generosity,  and  harlots  as 
paragons  of  purity  ;  and  the  narrative  is  so  managed 
that  the  virtues  atone  for  the  imperfections,  and  the 
crimes  are  made  to  appear  more  misfortunes  than 
faults.  The  heroes  and  heroines  are  the  victims 
of  circumstances,  and  society,  which  draws  in  its 
skirts  as  they  pass  by,  is  really  more  to  blame 
than  they.  Not  infrequently  has  the  name  of  the 
Teacher  of  Galilee  been  invoked  to  legitimise  such 
representations,  it  being  taken  for  granted  that  He 
would  have  judged  in  the  same  way.  But.  one 
essential  point  is  missed  by  those  who  thus  in  our 
day  patronise  Jesus,  as  it  was  by  those  who  criticized 
Him  in  His  own — namely,  that  He  invariably  drew 
near  to  the  outcasts  for  the  purpose  of  reclaiming 
them.  He  went  among  them,  as  He  said  Himself, 
as  the  physician  goes  among  the  sick.  Never  was 
there  a  more  unanswerable  argument ;  for  where 
ought  a  physician  to  be  if  not  among  the  diseased  ? 
and,  the  more  desperate  the  disease  is,  the  more  im¬ 
perative  is  it  that  he  should  be  there.*  But  the 
virtue  of  this  argument  depends  entirely  on  the  sup- 

*  Compare  the  logion  attributed  to  Jesus  by  Ephraem  Syrus  : 
“  But  where  the  pains  are,  thither  hasteneth  the  physician.” 

8 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


114 


position  that  he  is  there  to  cure.  Too  often  the 
modern  writers  of  whom  I  have  spoken  flatter  instead 
of  curing,  making  light  of  sin  and  putting  excuses  in 
the  mouths  of  those  who  practise  it.  But  Jesus 
induced  Zacchseus  to  disgorge  his  ill-gotten  gains 
and  commanded  the  woman  taken  in  adultery  to  sin  no 
more.  The  publicans  and  the  sinners  never  received 
the  impression  that  He  had  come  to  be  one  of  them¬ 
selves :  they  were  perfectly  well  aware  that  He  had 
come  to  win  them  from  an  evil  life. 

Yet  there  was  in  His  behaviour  a  remarkable 
novelty ;  and,  although  the  world  has  since  then 
travelled  far  in  His  company — so  far  that  the  hostility 
of  His  contemporaries  to  His  efforts  on  behalf  of  the 
fallen  are  now  hardly  intelligible — it  is  still  far  from 
comprehending  His  secret.  The  settled  conviction  of 
His  contemporaries  and  predecessors  was  that,  in 
dealing  with  carnal  and  open  sinners,  a  religious 
teacher  must  attack  their  sins  without  mercy  or  cir¬ 
cumlocution,  pounding  at  them  incessantly,  condemn¬ 
ing  and  exposing  them.  There  is  nothing  else  to  be 
done,  it  was  thought ;  and  this  is  still  the  conviction, 
conscious  or  unconscious,  of  many  earnest  souls. 
But  Jesus,  while  not  less  sensible  than  others  of  the 
magnitude  and  heinousness  of  such  sins,  recognised 
that  these  did  not  make  up  the  whole  history  of  those 
guilty  of  them.  Conspicuous  as  their  offences  might  be, 
towering  aloft  and  inviting  the  lightning  of  prophetic 
denunciation,  there  was  another  side,  less  visible  and 


r 

> 


SIN 


ii5 


less  easy  of  access  but,  when  found,  far  more  capable 
of  being  penetrated  with  the  message  of  Heaven.  Can 
anyone  look  at  the  Woman  who  was  a  Sinner,  kneeling 
at  the  feet  of  the  Saviour,  the  expression  of  her  love 
so  passionate  and  yet  so  restrained,  without  being 
convinced  that,  in  spite  of  her  awful  past,  there  were 
in  her  composition  elements  of  womanhood  of  the 
finest  quality,  waiting  for  disenthralment  ?  In  short, 
there  is  a  conscience  in  man,  even  at  his  worst,  and 
Jesus  habitually  made  use  of  this  as  a  lever  to  over¬ 
turn  the  fabric  of  iniquity.  It  is  by  the  good  in 
everyone  that  the  evil  must  be  overcome.  This  was 
the  secret  of  Jesus. 

The  locus  classicus ,  in  which  we  must  seek  the 
innermost  thoughts  of  Jesus  on  this  vital  point,  is  the 
fifteenth  chapter  of  St.  Luke.  The  woman’s  piece  of 
silver  did  not  turn  to  copper  or  lead,  when  it  was  lost. 
In  one  sense  its  value  was  reduced  to  zero,  because, 
for  the  time,  it  was  of  no  use  to  its  owner ;  and  this 
is  an  image  of  the  fact,  no  doubt  intended  to  be  sug¬ 
gested  by  the  Preacher,  that  an  impenitent  sinner  is 
throwing  away  thousands  of  opportunities  of  being 
useful  to  God  and  man.  In  like  manner  the  Lost 
Sheep  is  an  image  of  how  such  an  one  has  forsaken  his 
own  mercies  ;  and  the  Prodigal  Son  of  the  misery,  con¬ 
scious  or  unconscious,  of  his  condition.  But,  although 
mixed  up  with  dust  and  dirt,  the  coin  has  not  been 
changed  to  dust  and  dirt :  on  the  contrary,  the  eye  of 
the  mind  can  see  it  shining  where  it  lies,  even  before 


ii6 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


it  is  discovered,  as  the  imagination  of  the  miner  sees 
the  diamond,  condensed  from  secular  pressures, 
sparkling  below  the  quartz.  And,  in  the  same  way, 
Jesus  taught  the  world  to  divine  behind  the  iniquities 
of  the  chief  of  sinners  a  possible  son  of  God  and  heir 
of  eternity. 

So  far,  indeed,  from  becoming  valueless  through 
being  lost,  the  coin  thereby  acquired  an  extraordinary 
value  and  interest  in  the  mind  of  the  owner.  This 
fact  is  the  salient  point  of  all  the  three  parables  of 
the  fifteenth  of  St.  Luke.  The  Pharisees  were  acting 
on  the  supposition  that  those  whom  God  had  lost 
were  forgotten  or  hated  by  Him  ;  and  they  believed 
they  were  acting  in  accordance  with  His  mind  when 
they  neglected  or  hated  them  too ;  but  Jesus  proved 
to  them  by  a  series  of  illustrations,  which  could  easily 
have  been  multiplied — for  the  principle,  once  ad¬ 
mitted,  can  be  illustrated  by  a  hundred  instances — 
that  the  very  fact  of  being  lost  lends  to  any  object 
a  new  value  in  the  eyes  of  its  owner.  The  desiderium 
may  increase  till  it  is  an  all-absorbing  agony,  leading 
to  the  most  persevering  efforts  to  find  that  which  has 
been  lost.  This  is  human  nature.  Jesus  appealed  to 
the  world  to  confirm  His  reading  of  the  human  heart ; 
and,  in  the  depths  of  His  own  consciousness,  He  was 
certain  that  it  is  divine  nature  also ;  and  so  He 
ventured  to  announce  it  as  the  sentiment  of  Heaven — 
“  There  is  joy  in  the  presence  of  the  angels  of  God 
over  one  sinner  that  repenteth.” 


SIN 


117 


The  Sin  of  the  Pharisee 

If  Jesus  displayed  extraordinary  tolerance  to  the 
sins  of  the  publicans,  He  made  up  for  it  by  His 
treatment  of  the  sins  of  the  Pharisees,  His  attacks 
on  the  latter  being  vehement — not  to  say  violent — in 
the  extreme.  In  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  He 
turned  into  ridicule  their  habits  of  prayer,  fasting  and 
almsgiving.  As  time  went  on,  He  came  into  more 
and  more  direct  collision  with  them,  inflicting  many 
a  wound  that  could  not  but  be  bitterly  resented,  as  in 
the  parable  of  the  Two  Men  who  went  up  to  the 
Temple  to  Pray.  At  length  during  the  last  week  of 
His  life,  in  the  discourse  preserved  in  the  twenty- 
third  of  St.  Matthew,*  he  threw  every  consideration 
aside,  and,  in  tones  ranging  from  the  most  biting 
sarcasm  to  holy  indignation,  He  exposed  His  enemies 
to  the  contempt  of  the  multitude.  He  advised  His 
hearers  to  listen,  indeed,  to  these  holy  men,  because 
they  sat  in  Moses’  seat,  but  He  entreated  them  not 
to  imitate  them;  “For,”  said  He,  “they  say  and  do 
not.”  Then  He  ridiculed  their  broad  phylacteries 
and  long  prayers,  and  drew  an  irresistibly  amusing 
picture  of  their  struggle  for  the  chief  seats  at  feasts 
and  their  childish  delight  in  titles  of  honour.  What 
could  have  been  more  galling  to  religious  teachers 
than  to  be  told,  “Ye  shut  up  the  kingdom  of  heaven 


*  This  is  the  locus  classicus. 


Ii8 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


against  men,  for  ye  neither  go  in  yourselves  nor  suffer 
them  that  are  entering  to  go  in  ”  ;  or  to  those  zealous 
in  making  converts  to  Judaism  from  other  religions 
than  to  be  told,  “Ye  compass  sea  and  land  to  make 
one  proselyte,  and,  when  he  is  made,  ye  make  him 
twofold  more  the  child  of  hell  than  yourselves  ”  ? 
He  compared  them  to  “whited  sepulchres,  which, 
indeed,  appear  beautiful  outward,  but  are  within  full 
of  dead  men’s  bones  and  of  all  uncleanness.”  He  over¬ 
whelmed  them  with  a  succession  of  Seven  Woes,  as  if 
to  indicate  that,  in  His  opinion,  they  had  carried 
iniquity  to  the  point  of  perfection. 

There  recently  appeared  an  article  on  Jesus  by  a 
Jewish  scholar  of  the  most  modern  type,  who  spoke 
of  Him  with  respect,  commending  His  doctrine  to  the 
attention  of  his  co-religionists ;  but,  he  added,  the 
attacks  on  the  scribes  and  Pharisees  attributed  to 
Him  must  undoubtedly  be  inventions  of  a  later  age 
and  of  inferior  minds  ;  because  it  is  inconceivable  that 
so  good  a  man  could  have  spoken  so  of  other  good 
men.  Even  among  Christians  there  has  sometimes 
been  manifested  a  shrinking  from  this  section  of  the 
words  of  the  Master,  as  if  He  had  gone  over  the  score. 
Certainly  these  attacks  are  calculated  to  upset  the 
image  of  Him  in  some  minds,  to  which  He  appears 
too  meek  and  mild  to  kindle  into  wrath  and  indigna¬ 
tion  under  any  circumstances.  But  of  the  authenticity 
of  these  portions  of  His  preaching  there  can  be  no 
doubt ;  who,  indeed,  but  Himself  could  have  uttered 


the  discourse  of  the  twenty-third  of  St.  Matthew  ?  * 
And  those  who  love  and  honour  Him  need  not  be 
afraid  to  face  the  facts.  Jesus  was  a  prophet,  and 
one  of  the  principal  aspects  of  the  mission  of  the 
prophets  was  to  stigmatize  the  sins  of  the  people 
among  whom  they  lived  ;  and,  if  on  this  occasion 
His  attitude  was  of  more  than  prophetic  severity,  it  is 
enough  to  remark,  in  vindication  of  His  vehemence, 
that  the  sin  He  was  denouncing  was  hypocrisy. 

It  has  sometimes  been  suggested  that  the  reason 
why  Jesus  attacked  the  sin  of  the  publicans  so  little 
and  that  of  the  Pharisees  so  unmercifully  was  be¬ 
cause  the  latter  was  a  novelty  in  the  world.  In  the 
former  there  was  nothing  new ;  the  prophets  of  the 
Old  Testament  had  sufficiently  dealt  with  it  already  ; 
the  Son  of  God  would  not  deign  to  expose  those  who 
confessed  their  own  sin.  But  the  sin  of  the  Pharisees 
was  a  new  development  of  the  mystery  of  iniquity, 
and  its  wickedness  was  not  understood  :  on  the  con¬ 
trary,  its  practisers  were  able  to  masquerade  in  The  garb 
of  sanctity  ;  and  it  became  the  new  prophet  to  expose 
and  stigmatize  the  new  sin.  This  is  the  line  taken 
by  Mozley  in  the  discourse  on  the  Pharisees  in  his 

*  In  literary  form  this  discourse  is  not  surpassed  by  any  other 
utterance  of  Jesus.  The  feeling  is  strong,  having  obviously 
been  accumulating  for  a  lifetime,  but  it  is  perfectly  controlled ; 
and  the  swing  of  the  rhetoric  almost  goes  over  into  poetry. 
Only  at  v.  33  does  the  Speaker  at  last  seem  on  the  point  of 
losing  His  self-control ;  but  how  quickly  is  this  discord  resolved 
in  the  pathos  of  v.  37  ! 


120 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


University  Sermons,  in  which  we  have  a  marvellous 
instance  of  what  can  be  done,  by  depth  of  psychology 
and  keenness  of  moral  sensitiveness,  to  shed  fresh 
light  on  a  subject  which  may  appear  to  have  been 
long  exhausted  ;  for  Mozley  may  almost  be  said  to 
have  discovered  the  Pharisee,  so  subtle  and  illu¬ 
minative  is  his  analysis.  “  It  was  a  new  development 
of  evil  in  the  world,”  says  he,  “  when  a  class,  socially 
and  religiously  respectable,  was  discovered  to  be 
corrupt  at  the  root.  Evil  which  produced  evil,  which 
issued  in  disorder  and  crime,  was  an  old  fact ;  but 
evil  which  was  the  parent  of  outward  discipline  and 
goodness  was  new.  It  was  a  new  stroke  of  policy  in 
evil,  like  a  new  principle  in  trade  or  economic  science. 
It  was  a  new  revelation  of  the  power  and  character 
of  evil  that  it  was  not  confined  to  its  simple  and 
primitive  ways — its  direct  resistance  to  conscience — 
but  that  it  had  at  its  disposal  a  very  subtle  and 
intricate  machinery  for  attaining  what  the  simple 
methods  could  not  reach.  It  was  a  revelation  of 
human  nature  that  it  contained  all  this  machinery, 
this  duplicity  of  action  and  working  of  wheel  within 
wheel.  And  it  was  fit — there  was  a  special  aptness 
in  the  task — that  He  who  knew  what  was  in  man 
should  arraign  this  new  form  of  evil  upon  its  appear¬ 
ance  in  the  world  and  at  once  stamp  upon  it  that 
ineffaceable  stigma  which  it  has  never  been  able 
to  erase.  He  wbP  saw  the  imposture  and  exposed 
it  knew  that  it  must  be  exposed  in  no  doubtful 


SIN 


121 


terms,  and  that  less  severity  would  not  have  an¬ 
swered  His  purpose  and  left  the  mark  which  He 
designed.” 

The  besetting  sin  of  the  Jewish  race  in  earlier  ages 
had  been  idolatry  ;  it  was  against  this  that  the  wrath 
of  all  the  prophets  was  directed.  Nothing  is  more 
perplexing,  as  the  Old  Testament  history  is  perused, 
than  to  observe  how  ineradicable  was  the  tendency  to 
apostatize  from  Jehovah.  The  student  of  the  sacred 
narrative  asks  in  astonishment  how  those  who  had 
known  the  true  God  could,  century  after  century,  fall 
away  from  Him  to  the  worship  of  a  golden  calf  or 
such  monsters  as  Chemosh  and  Baal.  The  ex¬ 
planation  usually  offered  is  that  ancient  peoples, 
when  defeated  in  battle,  were  liable  to  transfer  their 
allegiance  to  the  deities  who  were  supposed  to  have 
given  victory  to  their  own  votaries.  But,  while  this 
may  sometimes  have  contributed,  the  real  reason  was 
a  different  one :  it  was  simply  that  the  worship  of 
idols  made  the  strongest  possible  appeal  to  the  worst 
side  of  human  nature.  The  heathen  temples  and 
groves  were  the  scenes  of  sensual  orgies,  in  which  the 
appetites  of  the  natural  man  received  stimulus  and 
satisfaction  to  the  full.  It  was  this  that  made  the 
proximity  of  the  Canaanite  cults  so  terrible  a  tempta¬ 
tion  to  Israel,  while  it  made  everyone  in  Israel  who 
had  any  regard  for  decency  and  purity  their  uncompro¬ 
mising  enemy.  Almost  more  surprising,  however,  than 
the  lapses  of  Israel  into  idolatry  during  so  many 


122 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


centuries  of  its  history  are  the  suddenness  and  the  com¬ 
pleteness  with  which  at  a  certain  point  in  its  history 
this  tendency  was  overcome.  By  the  exile  in  Babylon  it 
was  cured  once  for  all,  the  nation  returning  to  its  own 
land  not  only  with  no  disposition  to  follow  after  strange 
gods  but  with  a  fanatical  zeal  for  the  suppression  of 
idolatry.  Even  when  they  had  to  succumb  to  the 
Roman  sway,  they  would  not  permit  the  standards  of  the 
legions,  which  were  decorated  with  symbols  of  idolatry, 
to  be  carried  into  their  holy  city,  but  were  ready  to 
offer  their  necks  in  thousands  to  the  swords  of  the  con¬ 
querors  rather  than  admit  such  a  profanation.  This 
zeal  had  its  principal  seat  in  the  Pharisaic  party,  the 
members  of  which  were  distinguished  for  patriotism. 

The  nation  was  like  a  man  who,  having  sown  his 
wild  oats,  turns  over  a  new  leaf  and  becomes  a 
respectable  member  of  society,  marrying  a  wife, 
becoming  the  head  of  a  family,  and  setting  up  as  a 
zealous  defender  of  Church  and  State.  On  such  a 
man  the  transformation  is  great  to  outward  seeming  ; 
for  he  has  gone  over  to  the  side  of  law  and  order,  and 
is  zealous  against  transgressors.  Yet,  in  reality,  he 
may  remain  in  all  essential  respects  the  very  same 
man  as  before,  because  the  motive  of  the  change  is 
purely  selfish,  and  his  heart  may  be  totally  destitute 
of  that  which  is  the  essence  of  morality  and  religion. 
Conformity  to  the  conventionalities  is  the  price  he 
pays  for  the  comfortable  position  he  occupies  in 
society  ;  and,  the  longer  he  enjoys  the  esteem  of  his 


SIN 


123 


neighbours,  the  easier  does  it  become  to  pay  the 
tribute.  But  the  superficiality  of  the  change  is 
proved  by  the  ease  with  which,  when  from  home  and 
not  under  observation,  he  slips  such  habits  as 
Sabbath-keeping  and  church-going,  and  by  the  zest 
with  which,  in  confidential  hours  among  old  associates, 
he  recalls  the  memories  of  his  Bohemian  days.  In 
fact,  he  is  the  same  man,  only  with  a  veneer  of 
decency  spread  over  the  surface  of  his  character. 
Such  was  the  change  which  had  passed  over  the 
Jewish  people  and  was  exhibited  especially  in  the 
Pharisees.  In  some  respect  it  was  a  change  for  the 
better  ;  because,  as  it  is  better  in  any  community  to 
have  law-abiding  citizens  than  robbers  and  drunkards, 
so  it  is  better  that  men  should  be  zealots  for  the 
worship  of  the  true  God  than  remain  worshippers  of 
stocks  and  stones.  But  the  motive  of  the  change 
was  a  purely  selfish  one  ;  there  was  in  it  nothing 
of  either  the  love  of  God  or  the  love  of  man.  It  had 
been  discovered  that  religion  could  be  made  a  means 
of  personal  display  and  aggrandisement.  The  un¬ 
thinking  multitude  looked  up  to  the  Pharisees  as 
holy  men  ;  and  the  Pharisees  eagerly  raked  in  this 
tribute  of  popular  applause.  “  Religion,”  observes 
Mozley  in  the  discourse  already  quoted,  “  is  so  much 
a  part  of  our  nature  that  even  the  pride  of  man 
cannot  culminate  to  the  full  without  it.  Religion 
undoubtedly  makes  him  a  greater  being ;  if,  then,  he 
grasps  like  a  robber  at  the  prize  without  the  humbling 


124 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


means,  he  does  become  the  prouder  for  it.  And  then, 
in  its  turn,  religion  grovels  in  the  dust.” 

It  was  not,  however,  only  or  even  chiefly  because  it 
was  new  that  Jesus  attacked  so  bitterly  the  sin  of  the 
Pharisees.  He  must  have  considered  it  peculiarly 
malignant.  Once  He  compared  His  own  generation 
to  a  man  out  of  whom  a  devil  has  been  cast ;  where¬ 
upon  the  dispossessed  demon  goes  through  dry 
places,  seeking  rest  and  finding  none  ;  till  at  last  he 
says,  I  will  return  to  the  place  whence  I  came  out  : 
and,  finding  the  house  empty,  swept  and  garnished, 
he  takes  with  him  seven  other  spirits  more  wicked 
than  himself ;  and,  entering  in,  he  dwells  there ; 
“  And,”  solemnly  adds  Jesus,  “the  last  state  is  worse 
than  the  first.”  There  can  be  little  doubt  about  the 
interpretation  of  this  parable  as  far  as  it  was  intended 
to  apply  to  its  immediate  hearers.  The  demon  by 
which  Israel  had  been  possessed  in  the  days  of  the 
prophets  was,  as  we  have  seen,  idolatry  ;  but,  by 
means  of  the  Exile,  this  evil  spirit  had  been  exorcised. 
Unfortunately,  however,  the  reformation  had  been 
merely  negative.  The  empty  house  had  been  swept 
and  garnished  ;  but  the  genuine  spirits  of  religion  and 
morality  had  never  been  heartily  invited  to  come 
and  abide  in  it.  So,  there  was  room  for  any 
occupants  that  might  chance  to  be  passing  that  way  ; 
and  at  last  the  sins  of  the  mind — such  as  ambition 
and  arrogance — entered  the  tenantless  dwelling  and 
took  possession,  in  place  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh.  Or 


SIN 


125 


rather,  I  ought  to  say,  in  company  with  the  sins  of 
the  flesh,  for  Jesus  affirms  that  the  original  evil  spirit 
came  back  along  with  the  seven  new  ones  ;  and  in 
the  Gospels  there  are  too  many  indications  that 
beneath  the  cloak  of  Pharisaism  sensual  sin  was  not 
infrequently  concealed.*  This  must  be  the  significa¬ 
tion  of  our  Lord’s  charge  that  the  Pharisees  made 
clean  the  outside  of  the  cup  and  of  the  platter,  when 
within  these  were  full  of  extortion  and  excess. 
Mankind  in  all  ages  have  instinctively  felt  that  this 
kind  of  sin — sin  which  is  concealed  beneath  a  pro¬ 
fession  of  virtue  and  religion — eats  more  deeply  into 
the  soul  and  produces  more  complete  corruption  than 
the  worst  kinds  of  open  sin.  Hence  the  annihilating 
force  of  the  language  of  Jesus  when  He  made  the 
name  of  Pharisee  a  synonym  for  hypocrite. 

It  was  in  a  more  pathetic  vein  that  He  sometimes 
referred  to  another  characteristic  of  the  sin  of  the 
Pharisee  in  such  sayings  as  this,  “  They  that  are 
whole  have  no  need  of  a  physician,  but  they  that  are 
sick.”  There  is  hope  for  a  sinner  who  knows  that  he 
is  condemned,  but  of  what  use  is  even  the  Saviour  of 
the  world  to  one  who  is  not  aware  of  anything 
of  which  he  requires  to  repent  ?  “  Hence,”  observes 


*  In  the  second  chapter  of  Romans,  after  the  terrible  indictment 
of  the  Gentiles  in  the  first  chapter,  St.  Paul  expressly  brings  this 
charge  against  the  members  of  his  own  race — “And  thinkest 
thou,  O  man,  that  judgest  them  which  do  such  things,  and  doest 
the  same ,  that  thou  shalt  escape  the  judgment  of  God  ?  v 


126 


TI1E  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


Mozley,  “  that  great  and  conspicuous  point  of  view  in 
which  the  Pharisee  always  figures  in  the  Gospel — 
namely,  as  incapable  of  repentance.  Self-knowledge 
is  the  first  condition  of  repentance,  and  he  did  not 
possess  self-knowledge  ;  and,  therefore,  it  was  said  to 
him :  ‘  The  publicans  and  the  harlots  go  into  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  before  you,’  because  the  publicans 
and  the  harlots  knew  their  guilt,  and  he  did  not. 
He  had  degraded  conscience  below  the  place  which 
the  heathen  gave  it.  The  heathen,  at  any  rate, 
allowed  it  to  protest.  There  is,  indeed,  nothing  in  all 
history  more  remarkable  than  the  wild  and  fitful 
voice  of  the  heathen  conscience,  which  would 
suddenly  wake  up  out  of  its  trance,  to  pierce  heaven 
with  its  cries,  invoking  divine  vengeance  upon  some 
crime.  The  heathen  conscience  was  ‘  an  accuser, 
a  tormentor  ;  it  brooded  over  men  ;  it  stung  them ; 
it  haunted  them  in  their  dreams  ;  they  started  out  of 
their  sleep  with  horror  in  their  countenances,  wanting 
to  fly  from  it,  and  not  knowing  where  to  fly  ;  while 
the  more  they  fled  away  from  it,  the  more  its  arrows 
pursued  them,  wandering  over  the  wide  earth,  and 
seeking  rest  in  vain.  Or,  if  they  tried  to  drown  its 
voice  in  excitement  or  passion,  it  still  watched  its 
moment,  and  would  be  heard,  poisoning  their  revelry, 
and  awakening  them  to  misery  and  despair.  Com¬ 
pare  with  this  wild,  this  dreadful,  but  still  this  great 
visitant  from  another  world  the  Pharisaic  conscience, 
pacified,  domesticated,  brought  into  harness — a  tame 


SIN 


127 


conscience,  converted  into  a  manageable  and  applaud¬ 
ing  companion,  vulgarised,  humiliated,  and  chained  ; 
with  a  potent  sway  over  mint,  anise  and  cummin,  but 
no  power  over  the  heart — and  what  do  we  see  but 
a  dethroned  conscience,  deserted  by  every  vestige  of 
rank  and  dignity  ?  ” 

St.  Paul,  himself  a  converted  Pharisee,  carefully 
distinguishes  between  the  desires  of  the  flesh  and  the 
desires  of  the  mind  in  the  life  of  sin,  when  he  imparts 
this  bit  of  autobiography  :  “  Among  whom  also  we  all 
had  our  conversation  in  time  past  in  the  lusts  of  our 
flesh,  fulfilling  the  desires  of  the  flesh  and  of  the 
mind,  and  were  by  nature  the  children  of  wrath,  even 
as  others.”  *  And  elsewhere  he  draws  the  same 
distinction,  when  he  exhorts,  “  Dearly  beloved,  let  us 
cleanse  ourselves  from  all  filthiness  of  the  flesh  and 
spirit. The  sins  of  the  flesh  are  such  as  luxury, 
gluttony  and  sloth  ;  the  sins  of  the  mind  or  the  spirit 
are  such  as  pride,  ostentation  and  selfishness.  The 
former  are  the  sins  of  youth,  the  latter  of  age  ;  the 
former  are  the  sins  of  the  savage,  the  latter  of  the 
civilised  ;  the  former  are  the  sins  of  the  publican, 
the  latter  of  the  Pharisee.  The  former  strike  the  eye 
of  every  observer  and  invite  the  thunderbolts  of  every 
prophet ;  but  the  deepest  thinkers  on  such  subjects 
have  recognised  that  the  sins  of  the  mind  and  the 
spirit  send  their  roots  far  deeper  and  are  infinitely 
more  difficult  to  eradicate  from  the  soul. 


*  Eph.  ii.  3. 


t  2  Cor.  vii.  1. 


128 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


The  Sin  of  the  Sadducee 

The  Sadducees  were  the  anti-Pharisaic  party ; 
whatever  was  championed  by  the  one  party  was 
likely  to  be  opposed  by  the  other.  Thus,  whereas 
the  Pharisees  adhered  to  “  the  traditions  of  the 
elders,"  which  they  believed  to  have  come  down 
orally  from  Moses  and  to  possess  equal  authority 
with  those  doctrines  and  precepts  which  had  pro¬ 
ceeded  from  the  great  legislator  in  writing,-  the 
Sadducees  rejected  these  traditions  in  toto ,  adhering 
to  the  written  Word  alone,  and  especially  to  the 
Books  of  Moses.  In  this  they  were  undoubtedly 
correct  ;  but  they  went  as  far  in  the  direction  of 
believing  too  little  as  the  Pharisees  did  in  believing 
too  much.  Thus,  the  Gospel  tells  us,  they  denied  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead  and  the  existence  of  angels 
and  spirits  ;  or,  as  Josephus  in  The  Jewish  War 
expresses  their  opinions,  they  denied  the  immortality 
of  the  soul  and  the  rewards  and  punishments  of 
a  future  life,  saying  that  the  soul  perishes  with  the 
body.  They  were  the  sceptical  party  ;  or,  at  least, 
their  religious  beliefs  lacked  warmth  and  conviction. 

The  weakness  of  the  religious  sentiment  in  them 
was  partly  the  cause  and  partly  the  effect  of  another 
characteristic — perhaps  the  most  marked  of  all — 
namely,  worldliness.  If  the  spiritual  and  eternal 
stirred  them  but  faintly,  all  the  more  tenacious  was 
the  grasp  they  took  of  the  concerns  of  the  present 


SIN 


129 


life.  They  were  the  aristocratic  and  ruling,  but, 
at  the  same  time,  the  priestly  party,  because,  from  the 
date  of  the  return  from  the  Babylonian  Exile,  the 
high-priestly  office  had  been  closely  associated  with 
political  power,  and  the  high-priestly  families 
were  the  leaders  of  politics  and  society.  Priests 
immersed  in  the  affairs  of  the  visible  world  and  but 
faintly  tinged  with  the  hoper  or  spirit  of  the  world 
invisible,  the  professed  ministers  of  which  they  are, 
have  been  no  unusual  phenomena  in  history  ;  but 
rarely  has  the  type  been  more  perfectly  exhibited 
than  in  the  Sadducean  party.  Again  and  again 
would  the  religion  of  Jehovah  have  been  sacrificed, 
and  with  it  the  national  identity,  if  these  sacred 
inheritances  had,  in  critical  moments,  had  no  more 
zealous  conservators  ;  and,  however  severely  we  may 
judge  the  Pharisees,  as  they  appear  in  the  biography 
of  J  esus,  it  cannot  be  denied  that,  in  such  times  as 
those  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  they  were  the  saviours 
of  the  religion  of  which  we  have  become  the 
heirs. 

The  Sadducees  do  not  play  anything  like  so 
important  a  part  in  the  life  of  Christ  as  do  the 
Pharisees.  Jesus  did  not  come  nearly  so  much  into 
contact  or  collision  with  them.  Only  at  the  very 
close  of  His  career  do  we  find  them  openly  identified 
with  the  opposition  to  His  influence  and  doctrine. 
On  this  occasion  they  may  have  been  provoked  into 
active  hostility  by  His  action  in  cleansing  the  temple  ; 

9 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


130 

or  the  temple  was  under  the  charge  of  the  high- 
priests,  who  nearly  all  belonged  to  this  party  ;  and  it 
was  against  their  unholy  gains  that  He  was  striking 
when  He  drove  out  of  the  sacred  precincts  the 
traffickers  in  sacrificial  animals,  who  were  in  the  em¬ 
ployment  of  the  high-priests,  exclaiming :  “  It  is 
written,  My  house  shall  be  called  a  house  of  prayer, 
but  ye  have  made  it  a  den  of  thieves.” 

It  would  be  interesting  to  know  whether,  in  the 
sayings  of  Jesus,  we  have  received  any  picture  of 
the  Sadducee  similar  to  that  of  the  Pharisee  in  the 
parable  of  the  Two  Men  who  went  up  to  the  Temple 
to  Pray.  No  such  portrait  exists  to  which  the  Author 
has  expressly  attached  the  name  ;  but  there  exist 
more  portraitures  than  one  from  the  hand  of  the 
Master  to  which  we  can  hardly  be  mistaken  in 
affixing  this  label. 

Such  especially  is  the  parable — if  it  be  a  parable — 
of  the  Rich  Man  and  Lazarus.  Dives,  as  he  is  often 
called,  was  clothed  with  purple  and  fine  linen,  and 
fared  sumptuously  every  day,  while  Lazarus  lay  at 
his  gate  full  of  sores  and  desiring  to  be  fed  with  the 
crumbs  that  fell  from  the  rich  man’s  table.  Exegetic 
ingenuity  has  pointed  out  that  the  parable  does  not 
state  that  Lazarus  was  fed  from  the  crumbs,  but 
only  that  he  desired  to  be  fed.  To  such  wire¬ 
drawing,  however,  we  will  give  no  countenance.  Jesus 
sketches  Dives  not  unkindly.  On  the  contrary,  even 
in  hell  the  miserable  man  is  represented  as  anxious 


SIN 


iji 

about  the  fate  of  his  five  brethren.  At  this  also, 
indeed,  wire-drawing  exegesis,  terrified  at  discovering 
any  trace  of  goodness  in  hell,  has  taken  offence,  and 
construed  it  as  a  trait  of  selfishness  :  he  was  afraid,  it 
is  insinuated,  to  meet  his  brethren  in  the  place  of  woe, 
lest  they  should  reproach  him  with  bringing  them 
thither.  But  neither  with  this  will  we  have  anything 
to  do.  Wherein,  then,  lay  the  guilt  for  which  Dives 
was  condemned  to  such  an  awful  fate?  Is  it  sinful 
to  be  clothed  well  and  to  dine  well  ?  Of  course  the 
answer  is,  that  to  Dives  these  things  were  the  whole 
of  life.  He  lived  to  dine  and  to  wear  sumptuous 
clothing,  neither  bestowing  on  the  poor  any  generosity 
commensurate  with  his  means  nor  remembering  that 
he  was  an  heir  of  eternity.  Here,  in  fact,  we  have 
come  again  upon  the  tremendous  moral  principle, 
which  occupies  so  prominent  a  place  in  the  Ethic  of 
Jesus,  that  not-doing  may  be  as  guilty  as  doing,  and 
that  the  Judge  will  accept  no  excuse  for  a  life  not 
marked  by  usefulness  up  to  the  measure  of  its 
opportunities.  It  is  evident,  however,  that  the  lesson 
would  acquire  additional  piquancy  if  Dives  could 
with  certainty  be  identified  with  the  Sadducee. 

There  is  another  of  the  parables  between  which 
and  this  one  there  is  a  close  resemblance — namely, 
that  of  the  Rich  Fool.  In  regard  to  it  also  the 
question  has  been  asked,  wherein  the  man’s  fault  lay. 
Is  it  a  crime,  when  a  farmer’s  barns  are  too  small,  to 
build  greater,  or  even,  when  the  harvest-home  has 


132 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


been  unusually  abundant,  to  eat,  drink  and  be  merry  ? 
In  this  case,  however,  Jesus  has,  in  the  closing 
sentences  of  the  parable,  made  unmistakeable  what 
His  charge  against  the  accused  is.  His  mind  and 
heart  have  been  entirely  absorbed  in  his  property — 
the  mere  shell  and  husk  of  life — while  for  his  soul 
and  his  eternity  he  has  manifested  no  concern.  To 
quote  the  very  words  of  the  Teacher,  he  has  heaped 
up  treasures  for  himself,  but  has  not  been  rich  towards 
God.  This  is  precisely  the  spirit  of  the  Sadduc.ee — 
it  is  a  perfect  description  of  worldliness,  the 
Sadducee’s  sin  ;  but  it  is  perhaps  too  common  a 
case  to  have  been  consciously  painted  with  an  eye 
to  a  particular  class. 

There  is,  however,  a  third  parable  in  which  I 
should  fancy  it  to  be  nearly  indubitable  that  our 
Lord  had  a  member  of  this  party  in  His  eye.  This  is 
the  parable  of  the  Unjust  Judge  and  the  Poor  Widow. 
The  Sadducees  took  a  prominent  part  in  the  justiciary 
business  of  the  country ;  and  the  cynicism  of  the 
official  who  neither  feared  God  nor  regarded  man 
must  have  been  the  very  mark  of  many  a  haughty 
member  of  this  class,  living  in  the  provinces  among 
people  he  despised,  and  far  from  the  capital,  for  the 
society  of  which  he  pined.  That  which  he  could  not 
be  got  to  do,  either  for  the  fear  of  God  or  out  of 
regard  to  man,  he  yet  hastened  to  do  merely  to  save 
himself  from  annoyance  ;  and  this  is  a  thoroughly 
Sadducean  trait.  The  Sadducee  was  a  friend  of 


SIN 


*33 


heathen  culture  and  philosophy ;  he  found  refuge 
from  the  disagreeable  insistence  of  business  and  the 
presence  of  disagreeable  people  in  association  with 
the  wisdom  of  Plato  and  the  eloquence  of  Cicero  ; 
and,  in  order  to  escape  to  these  employments  of  his 
learned  leisure,  he  was  willing  to  decree  anything. 
For  him  justice  had  no  majesty  and  the  misfortune  of 
a  widow  no  sacredness  ;  the  thing  which  did  im¬ 
measurably  matter  was  that  his  philosophic  calm 
should  not  be  ruffled.  Such  a  figure,  I  should  sup¬ 
pose,  had  been  seen  by  Jesus  in  the  course  of  His 
wanderings  through  the  land ;  and  it  is  ten  to  one 
that  he  was  a  Sadducee. 

Whether  these  supposed  references  to  Sadducees 
in  the  teaching  of  our  Lord  be  actual  or  not,  certain 
it  is  that  the  spirit  of  the  Sadducees  was  opposite  to 
His — more  so,  I  should  say,  than  the  spirit  of  the 
Pharisees.  Worldliness  was  the  badge  of  this  party. 
Now,  worldliness  stifles  the  very  faculty  of  religion  ; 
and  on  a  cold,  cynical  heart  the  appeals  of  religion 
fall  like  seed  upon  a  rock.  This  was  the  spirit  that, 
consciously  or  unconsciously,  our  Lord  was  attacking 
when,  in  the  parable  of  the  Sower,  He  spoke  of  the 
seed  falling  on  rocky  soil ;  and  it  was  the  same  spirit 
that  in  another  parable — that  of  the  Excuses — 
rendered  of  no  effect  the  invitations  to  the  feast. 
The  man  who  bought  a  piece  of  ground  which  he 
was  going  to  visit,  the  man  who  had  bought  a  yoke 
of  oxen  which  he  must  needs  go  and  prove,  and  the 


134 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


man  who  had  married  a  wife  and  therefore  could  not 
come  were  all  samples  of  worldliness — that  is,  of  the 
spirit  to  which  the  things  that  can  be  seen  and  touched 
are  the  realities  which  impress  and  inspire,  but  the 
objects  of  the  spiritual  and  eternal  world  are  shadows, 
to  which  one  may  decently  bow  and  burn  incense  but 
which  do  not  exercise  any  constraining  influence  over 
life  and  conduct. 

There  is  one  object  on  which  the  Sadducee  in 
human  nature  casts  itself  by  an  inevitable  instinct,  and 
to  which  it  clings  with  appalling  tenacity.  This  is 
money.  Money  is  the  sign  and  symbol  of  all  earthly 
possessions  ;  it  is  earthly  pleasure  in  a  solid  con¬ 
dition,  only  requiring  to  be  melted  to  assume  any  of 
its  more  volatile  and  usable  forms  ;  and  the  pursuit 
of  it  easily  becomes  an  absorbing  passion  even  with 
those  who  have  forgotten  how  to  turn  it  into  these 
equivalents. 

On  this  subject  the  language  of  Jesus  is  astonish¬ 
ingly  severe.  He  actually,  at  least  as  reported  by 
one  of  the  Evangelists,*  said,  “  Blessed  are  ye  poor,” 

*  St.  Luke  manifests  a  partiality  for  such  sayings,  which  has 
caused  him  to  be  styled  “  the  Socialist  among  the  Evangelists.” 
Thus,  to  him  alone  we  are  indebted  for  the  parables  of  the  Rich 
Fool,  Dives  and  Lazarus,  and  the  Pharisee  and  the  Publican,  as 
well  as  the  story  of  Zacchaeus,  the  incident  in  which  Jesus  was 
asked  to  decide  a  question  of  inheritance,  and  the  social  de¬ 
liverances  in  the  preaching  of  the  Baptist.  To  sayings  of  this 
sort,  reported  also  by  the  other  Evangelists,  he  gives  an  additional 
emphasis  as  may  be  seen  by  comparing  Matt.  v.  22  with 
Luke  vi.  30,  35 ;  Mark  vi.  8  with  Luke  ix.  3 ;  Matt.  xxii.  10 


SIN 


135 


and,  “Woe  to  you  that  are  rich,”  as  if  He  condemned 
wealth  absolutely  and  prescribed  poverty  to  all  who 
should  accept  His  doctrine.  “  Lay  not  up  for  your¬ 
selves,”  He  cautioned  His  disciples,  “treasure  upon 
earth,  where  moth  and  rust  doth  corrupt,  and 
where  thieves  break  through  and  steal  ;  but  lay  up 
for  yourselves  treasure  in  heaven,  where  neither 
moth  nor  rust  doth  corrupt,  and  where  thieves  do 
not  break  through  nor  steal ;  for,  where  your  treasure 
is,  there  shall  your  heart  be  also” — the  last  words 

with  Luke  xiv.  21.  The  most  striking  instance  is  that,  whereas 
St.  Matthew  reports  Jesus  as  saying,  “Blessed  are  the  poor  in 
spirit/’  St.  Luke  not  only  renders  this  as  “  Blessed  are  ye  poor,” 
but  adds,  “  Woe  unto  you  that  are  rich  ”  (vi.  20,  24).  The  ques¬ 
tion  is,  whether,  in  such  cases,  the  first  and  second  Evangelists 
have  toned  down  the  original,  which  the  third  has  preserved  in 
its  native  freshness,  or  whether  St.  Luke  has  heightened  the 
colouring  for  reasons  of  his  own.  Some  have  attributed  his 
tendency  to  Pauline  influence,  but  without  considering  sufficiently 
whether  the  influence  of  St.  Paul  would  not  have  told  the  oppo¬ 
site  way.  Others  have  attributed  it  to  a  socialistic  current  which, 
it  is  said,  can  be  traced  in  many  quarters,  heathen  as  well  as 
Christian,  in  the  century  in  which  the  New  Testament  literature 
came  into  existence.  Of  late  there  has  been  a  disposition  to 
attribute  it  to  the  use  by  St.  Luke  of  a  source  which  he  must 
have  found  among  the  poor  Jews  at  Jerusalem  or  in  the  sur¬ 
rounding  neighbourhood  to  whom  St.  Paul  brought  alms  from  his 
Gentile  converts  ;  but  it  is  not  made  very  clear  what  should  have 
caused  St.  Luke  to  be  partial  to  information  coming  to  him  from 
such  a  quarter  ;  though,  of  course,  it  may  have  been  enough  for 
him  to  be  persuaded  that  it  was  according  to  fact,  Jesus  having 
actually  uttered  these  sayings  as  they  had  been  handed  down. 
See  a  fairly  good  discussion  of  the  question  in  Rogge,  Der 
irdisclie  Besitz  im  N.T.,  pp.  10-18. 


I36 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


containing  one  of  those  great  flashes  of  moral  insight 
with  which  He  was  able  ever  and  anon  to  light  up 
His  discourses.  “  It  is  easier,”  He  said,  “  for  a  camel 
to  go  through  the  eye  of  a  needle  than  for  a  rich 
man  to  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God.”  So  ex¬ 
traordinary  is  this  saying  that  even  His  disciples, 
who,  one  would  suppose,  had  little  need  to  be  afraid 
lest  they  should  be  excluded  on  account  of  their 
wealth,  were  alarmed  and  asked,  “  Who,  then,  can 
be  saved  ?  ”  But  the  harshest  saying  of  all  was  -  to 
the  young  man  who  came  asking,  “  What  shall  I  do 
that  I  may  inherit  eternal  life  ?  ”  “  Go  and  sell  all 

that  thou  hast  and  give  to  the  poor,  and  thou  shalt 
have  treasure  in  heaven,  and  come  and  follow  Me.” 
Innumerable  have  been  the  attempts  to  prove  the 
reasonableness  of  this  demand,  the  majority  of  them 
assuming  something  exceptional,  known  to  himself 
and  Jesus,  in  the  temperament  and  circumstances  of 
the  man  ;  but,  when  all  is  said,  it  remains  a  hard 
saying. 

Such  sayings  have  been  accepted  literally  by  some 
who  have  undertaken  to  expound  the  mind  of  Jesus. 
So  it  was  in  the  Ancient  Church,  when  those  at  any 
rate  who  adopted  the  clerical  career  sold  all  that 
they  had  and  distributed  to  the  poor  before  entering 
upon  office ;  in  the  Middle  Ages,  leaders  like  St. 
Francis  of  Assisi  held  up  to  thousands  of  enthusiasts 
the  assumption  of  voluntary  poverty  as  the  true 
imitation  of  Christ  ;  and  in  our  own  day  a  man  like 


SIN 


137 


Count  Tolstoy  still  understands  in  this  sense  the 
mind  and  intention  of  the  Saviour.  Nihilists,  who 
dogmatically  affirm  that  private  property  is  robbery, 
appeal  to  the  Man  of  Nazareth  as  the  first  teacher 
of  their  principles ;  whereas,  on  the  opposite  side, 
it  is  made  a  charge  against  Him  by  the  materialistic 
writers  of  the  Continent,  that  He  had  no  proper 
respect  for  property ;  and  there  are  few  objections 
to  Christianity  more  effective  with  the  bourgeoisie 
or  even  the  proletariat.  Strauss,  in  his  last  work  of 
importance,  The  Old  and  the  New  Faith ,  played  off 
this  objection  for  all  it  was  worth  ;  and  Rau,  an 
adherent  of  the  naturalistic  school  of  Feuerbach  and 
Moleschott,  in  a  work  recently  published,  entitled 
The  Ethic  of  Jesus ,  takes  it  for  granted  that  the 
monastic  interpretation  of  this  portion  of  the  words 
of  Jesus  is  the  true  one  ;  and  thus  he  has  no  diffi¬ 
culty  in  raising  strong  prejudice  against  the  moral 
teaching  of  our  Lord.  There  are  historians  who 
represent  Jesus  as  having  been  a  wandering  mendi¬ 
cant,  whose  aim  was  to  found  a  society  in  which 
there  should  be  no  social  distinctions,  because  all 
found  their  happiness  in  freedom  from  care,  this 
being  secured  by  freedom  from  possessions. 

But,  although  in  a  theoretical  world  the  absence  of 
possessions  may  be  identical  with  freedom  from  care, 
it  is  not  so  in  the  actual  world.  Unless  those  who 
have  no  possessions  of  their  own  are  clever  enough 
to  induce  others  to  toil  for  them,  their  life  must  be 


138 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


one  of  incessant  anxiety,  which  is  by  no  means 
favourable  to  religious  absorption.  Few  are  so 
exposed  to  temptation,  or  so  little  able  to  serve  God 
with  an  undistracted  mind,  as  persons  in  debt. 
While  Jesus  earnestly  deprecated  carefulness  about 
such  things  as  food  and  clothing,  He  nevertheless 
recognised  these  as  things  which  all  have  need  of, 
and  He  took  it  for  granted  that  they  must  be  sought, 
only  urging  that  righteousness  should  be  sought  first. 
In  parables  like  the  Talents  and  the  Pounds  He 
manifested  a  high  appreciation  of  all  providential 
advantages  such  as  are  afforded  by  money  and 
property  for  service  to  God  and  man  ;  and  in  many 
parables  He  dwelt  upon  faithfulness  to  a  trust,  under 
a  prince  or  a  master,  as  a  virtue  of  the  very  front 
rank.  On  nothing  did  He  more  frequently  insist 
than  that  His  followers  should  give  alms  to  the  poor. 
But  it  is  obvious  that  those  who  habitually  give  to 
the  poor  must  themselves  have  some  means  of 
acquiring  the  wherewithal  with  which  to  keep  up  the 
practice ;  and,  if  it  be,  as  St.  Paul  has  informed  us,  a 
maxim  of  Jesus  that  “it  is  more  blessed  to  give  than 
to  receive,”  *  this  is  an  acknowledgment  that  it  is 
better  to  have  than  not  to  have  ;  because  it  is  those 
who  have  that  give,  and  those  who  have  not  who 
receive.  Besides  giving  to  the  poor,  Jesus  recom¬ 
mended  giving  to  the  house  of  God,  and  He  could 


*  Quoted  as  a  logion  of  Jesus  in  the  speech  to  the  elders  of 
Ephesus,  Acts  xx. 


SIN 


*39 


even  defend  lavish  expenditure  on  objects  which  to 
narrow  minds  appeared  destitute  of  utility,  as  in  the 
•case  of  Mary’s  box  of  ointment.  It  would  not  be  too 
much  to  say  that  He  took  it  for  granted  that  His 
followers  would  be  of  the  class  able  to  give  to  the 
needy.  He  did  not  associate  exclusively  with  poor 
people,  but  accepted  without  hesitation  the  hospitality 
of  those  able  to  entertain  Him  in  handsome  and 
festive  fashion.  It  was  against  such  an  absorption 
in  wealth  as  makes  it  the  be-all  and  end-all  of 
existence  that  He  protested — against  the  habit  of 
regarding  it  as  the  end  instead  of  only  as  the  means 
of  life. 

This  is  the  essential  distinction.  Money  is  an 
enslaving  power  when  it  is  valued  and  pursued  for 
its  own  sake  ;  but,  when  mind  and  heart  stand  above 
it,  compelling  it  to  subserve  their  chosen  ends,  then 
it  may  become  one  of  the  instrumentalities  of  the 
kingdom  of  God.  The  strongest  statement  of  Jesus 
in  this  direction  is  perhaps  the  conclusion  of  the 
Parable  of  the  Unjust  Steward:  “And  I  say  unto 
you,  make  to  yourselves  friends  of  the  mammon  of 
unrighteousness,  that,  when  ye  die,  they  may  receive 
you  into  everlasting  habitations.”  As  a  whole  this 
is  probably  the  most  difficult  to  interpret  of  all  our 
Lord’s  parables,  the  main  difficulty  lying  in  the  fact 
that  it  appears  to  hold  up  for  imitation  the  shady 
behaviour  of  a  bad  man.  But  the  single  point  on 
which  the  application  turns  is  the  necessity  and  the 


140 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


reward  of  foresight.  This  is  the  same  lesson  as 
was  taught  in  the  parable  of  the  Ten  Virgins ;  but 
here  Jesus  gives  to  it  the  peculiar  application  that 
even  money,  the  use  of  which  is  so  often  tainted,  may 
in  this  world  be  expended  in  such  ways  as  to  yield 
a  return  in  the  world  to  come. 

Those  who  represent  Jesus  as  aiming  at  the 
creation  of  a  society  in  which  there  should  be  no 
wealth,  but  all  should  enjoy  happiness  in  universal 
poverty,  may  mean  well,  but  they  are  really  doing 
their  best  to  dethrone  Him  from  the  imperial  position 
He  occupies  as  the  Teacher  of  the  world  ;  for  nothing 
is  more  certain  than  that  mankind  will  not  perma¬ 
nently  listen  to  any  master  who  ignores  or  despises 
the  fruits  of  intelligence,  industry  and  labour.  Man 
knows  himself  to  be  endowed  with  powers  of  mind 
and  body  on  the  exercise  and  development  of  which 
his  happiness  and  his  dignity  depend  ;  the  stamp 
which  his  labour  is  impressing  on  nature  is  gradually 
transforming  the  earth  into  a  scene  of  order,  fertility 
and  beauty  ;  and  no  authority,  however  high,  will 
permanently  convince  him  that  this  aim  is  an  error 
or  a  sin.  We  could  not  even  believe  Jesus  if  He 
taught  what  is  directly  contradictory  of  our  own 
experience  and  the  primary  dictates  of  our  intelli¬ 
gence.  But  this  I  say  only  in  order  to  repudiate  the 
interpretations  of  those  who  would  father  upon  Him 
unnatural  and  fantastic  ideas  which  He  never  enter¬ 
tained. 


While,  however,  we  thus  vindicate  Jesus  from  the 
exaggerations  of  such  interpreters  as  Tolstoy,  it 
remains  true  that  He  saw  in  money  a  much  more 
formidable  enemy  of  the  kingdom  of  God  than  we 
are  apt  to  recognise  it  to  be.  The  feuds  occasioned 
between  nation  and  nation  by  the  lust  for  the  soil  of 
the  globe ;  the  disruption  of  friendship  and  domestic 
ties  by  disputes  about  inheritance  ;  the  murders  and 
robberies  perpetrated  for  the  sake  of  gold  ;  the 
hardening  of  the  heart  to  all  sympathy  and  generosity 
induced  by  the  keenness  of  competition  ;  the  un¬ 
righteous  and  shameful  occupations  to  which  men 
will  stoop  if  only  there  be  money  in  them ;  the  power 
of  the  pleasures  which  money  can  buy  to  drown  the 
soul  in  animalism  ;  the  oblivion  of  all  distant  and 
divine  things  produced  by  the  acquisition  of  property, 
— such  phenomena  of  the  life  of  man  stood  out 
before  the  mind  of  Jesus  with  a  vividness  of  impres¬ 
sion  which  we  only  realise  at  rare  moments  and  soon 
forget.  In  His  eyes  wealth  constituted  a  moral 
danger,  which  only  constant  vigilance  could  prevent 
from  turning  out  a  curse  in  the  disguise  of  a  blessing. 
Only  the  determination  to  be  the  master  and  not 
the  slave  of  property,  combined  with  the  constant 
practice  of  liberality,  could  keep  the  heart  free  and 
unentangled. 

On  the  other  hand,  Jesus  did  not  dread  poverty, 
as  the  world  does.  It  may  be  a  blessing  in  disguise. 
In  seasons  of  outward  loss  and  calamity  the  enduring 


142 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


possessions  of  the  soul  grow  large,  luminous  and 
attractive,  and  the  slumbering  instincts  of  the  spiritual 
nature  waken  up  to  apprehend  them.  The  poor  are 
less  liable  than  the  rich  to  feel  that  one  world  is 
enough.  Nothing  seemed  to  Jesus  so  much  to  poison 
the  existence  of  the  children  of  men  as  a  craven 
dread  of  the  future.  They  think  a  lion  is  lurking 
round  every  turning  of  the  road,  and  they  darken  the 
sunshine  of  to-day  by  borrowing  trouble  from  to¬ 
morrow,  as  if  there  were  no  heavenly  Father  to  whom 
the  future  is  known.  Men  accumulate  the  apparatus 
of  life  instead  of  living,  forgetful  of  the  fact  that  a 
man’s  life  consisteth  not  in  the  abundance  of  the 
things  which  he  possesseth.  In  reality,  however,  the 
requirements  of  a  human  being  are  few,  and  they  are 
not  so  difficult  to  find.  Martha  is  troubled  about 
many  things,  but  one  thing  is  needful.  God  would 
not  have  brought  us  into  the  world  if  there  had  not 
been  a  place  for  us  at  the  universal  table.  It  is  a  sunny 
world,  if  we  will  only  stand  in  the  sunshine,  instead 
of  skulking  among  the  shadows.  This  is  the  essence 
of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  and  it  is  at  the  opposite 
pole  from  Sadduceeism. 

Such,  then,  were  the  sins  of  the  time  of  Christ — the 
sin  of  the  publican,  the  sin  of  the  Pharisee,  the  sin  of 
the  Sadducee — and  the  fact  that  we  have  had  to 
dwell  so  long  on  this  part  of  our  subject,  in  order  to 
exhaust  all  His  mind  upon  it,  shows  how  large  a 


SIN 


143 


place  it  held  in  His  thoughts  and  in  His  teaching.  It 
may  be  objected,  however,  that  these  were  the  sins 
of  special  classes,  and  that  perhaps  He  did  not 
attribute  sinfulness  to  all  men.  But  He  says  to  all 
men  who  listen  to  Him,  even  when  complimenting 
them  on  one  of  their  good  qualities,  “  If  ye,  then, 
being  evil,  know  how  to  give  good  gifts  unto  your 
children.”  The  late  Dr.  Bruce  protested  against  such 
an  obiter  dictum  being  used  to  carry  a  great  dogmatic 
consequence  ;  but  it  seems  to  me  that  it  is  the  very 
casualness  of  the  saying  that  imparts  to  it  such 
terrible  force  :  it  is  as  if  He  said,  “  Of  course  ye  are 

r 

evil,  and  ye  know  it ;  it  requires  no  proof.”  And 
what  a  glance  it  is  into  the  heart  of  man  when  He 
says,  “  Out  of  the  heart  proceed  evil  thoughts, 
murders,  adulteries,  fornications,  thefts,  false  witness, 
blasphemies.”  The  sins  of  individuals  and  of  classes 
are  only  the  outcropping  above  the  surface  of  a 
solidarity  of  evil  beneath  the  surface,  which  is  the 
property  of  the  race  as  a  whole. 

Jesus  would  appear,  however,  to  have  looked  upon 
His  own  age  and  His  own  countrymen  as  peculiarly 
wicked.  Against  His  own  generation  He  directed  a 
force  and  a  reiteration  of  invective  that  are  without 
a  parallel.  “This,”  He  said,  “is  an  evil  generation.” 
He  went  so  far  as  to  call  it  “  a  generation  of  vipers.” 
Again  and  again  He  denounced  it  as  “a  wicked  and 
adulterous  generation,”  the  latter  adjective  being,  in 
accordance  with  the  usage  of  the  Old  Testament, 


M4 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


employed  in  the  sense  of  “  idolatrous,”  seeing  that 
idolatry  was  unfaithfulness  on  the  part  of  the  nation 
to  Jehovah,  its  husband  ;  so  that  the  entire  phrase 
means  morally  and  spiritually  depraved.  The  Jewish 
nation  He  compared  to  a  fig-tree  planted  in  a  vine¬ 
yard— that  is,  favoured  with  unusual  privileges,  and 
cultivated  with  unusual  care — yet  from  year  to  year 
yielding  nothing — a  useless  log,  cumbering  the 
ground. 

Would  inquiry  show  that  the  race  of  which  He  was 
a  child  was  more  wicked  than  the  other  races  of  the 
human  species,  and  that  the  age  in  which  He  lived 
was  worse  than  those  that  had  preceded  or  that  have 
come  after  it  ?  or  are  these  the  stock  complaints  of 
every  prophet  in  every  age  ?  A  very  short  time  after 
He  left  the  earth,  and  before  His  century  ended,  the 
nation  of  the  Jews  was  turned  inside  out  and  its 
seamy  side  exposed  to  the  eyes  of  history.  In  the 
annals  of  mankind  there  have  been  few  such  testing 
experiences  as  the  siege  of  Jerusalem  in  the  year  70 
of  the  Christian  era  ;  and  never  has  all  which  such  a 
test  has  revealed  of  that  which  is  in  man  been  more 
mercilessly  put  on  paper  than  in  The  Jewish  War  of 
Josephus.  Perhaps  this  author  is  not  altogether  to^ 
be  trusted,  because  he  was  a  turncoat ;  but  he  alleges 
that  such  was  the  iniquity  of  the  Holy  City  before  it 
was  besieged  by  Titus  that,  had  it  not  been  destroyed 
by  the  Romans,  the  earth  must  have  opened  to 
swallow  it  up  ;  and,  in  spite  of  the  pity  extorted  by 


SIN 


*45 

his  narrative,  the  impression  produced  by  it  as  a 
whole  is  one  of  such  demoniac  passion  and  violence 
that  the  reader  acquiesces  in  the  judgment  of  Provi¬ 
dence  by  which  such  a  nest  of  iniquity  was  removed 
from  the  earth. 

When  the  best  is  corrupted,  says  the  proverb,  it 
becomes  the  worst ;  and  this  principle  may  be  the 
explanation  of  the  degeneration  of  Israel.  There  is 
no  sin  so  guilty  as  sin  against  light;  and  Israel  had 
enjoyed  divine  light  beyond  all  the  nations  of  the 
ancient  world.  The  results  had  not,  however,  been 
such  as  the  Giver  of  the  light  was  entitled  to  expect. 
Age  after  age  those  sent  by  Him  to  enlighten  their 
fellow-countrymen  had  been  despised  and  rejected. 
Jerusalem  was  the  city  which  slew  the  prophets.  The 
Jews  were  like  husbandmen  left  in  charge  of  a  vine¬ 
yard  who,  when  the  owner  at  the  vintage  sent  to  ask 
for  his  own,  beat  one  messenger  and  stoned  another, 
and  were  only  acting  in  character  when  at  last  they 
slew  his  son.  And  this  conduct,  Jesus  predicted, 
would  prevail  in  the  future  as  it  had  done  in  the  past : 
“  Behold,  I  send  unto  you  prophets,  and  wise  men, 
and  scribes  ;  and  some  of  them  ye  shall  kill  and 
crucify  ;  and  some  of  them  ye  shall  scourge  in  your 
synagogues  and  persecute  from  city  to  city.”  Again 
and  again  He  had  to  forewarn  His  followers  and 
apostles  of  the  treatment  they  were  to  expect : 
“  Behold,  I  send  you  forth  as  sheep  into  the  midst  of 
wolves  .  .  .  they  will  deliver  you  up  to  the  councils, 


10 


146 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


and  they  will  scourge  you  in  their  synagogues,  and 
ye  shall  be  brought  before  governors  and  kings  for 
My  sake,  for  a  testimony  against  them  and  the 
Gentiles.”  The  latter  words  show  that  this  perse¬ 
cuting  violence  was  not  to  be  confined  to  Jews,  but 
manifested  by  heathens  as  well.  In  any  case  its 
prevalence  is  one  of  the  worst  features  of  history,  and 
one  of  the  most  damning  facts  against  human  nature. 

In  the  words  of  Jesus  humanity  never  appears  to 
less  advantage  than  when  its  hostility  to  goodness  is 
being  spoken  of. 

Of  course  the  culminating  illustration  of  this  was 
in  the  conduct  of  the  Jews,  and  of  mankind  as  repre¬ 
sented  by  the  Jews,  toward  Christ  Himself.  In  Him 
had  the  perfect  goodness  visited  the  earth,  but  its 
presence  served  only  to  irritate  the  wickedness  and 
to  bring  out  its  uttermost  malignity.  He  had  brought 
to  His  own  generation  privileges  such  as  no  pre¬ 
ceding  age  and  no  other  race  had  ever  enjoyed ;  yet, 
through  misuse,  these  had  all  turned  to  condemnation  ; 
so  that,  as  He  told  them,  the  men  of  Nineveh  and  the 
Queen  of  Sheba  would  rise  up  in  judgment  with  the 
men  of  His  generation  and  would  condemn  them  ; 
because  they  had  made  use  of  their  privileges,  and 
these  had  not.  Even  for  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  it  . 
would  be  more  tolerable  in  the  day  of  judgment  than 
for  the  towns,  like  Bethsaida  and  Capernaum,  in  the 
streets  of  which  His  messages  had  been  delivered 
and  His  signs  wrought.  This  is  a  principle  which 


SIN 


147 


must  always  be  illustrated  by  the  religion  of  Jesus,  to 
whatever  quarter  of  the  world  it  may  travel :  it 
hardens  the  hearts  which  it  does  not  melt,  and  sinks 
into  deeper  condemnation  those  who  do  not  through 
it  attain  to  righteousness  ;  for  there  can  be  no  greater 
guilt  than  the  rejection  of  the  Son  of  God. 

In  spite,  however,  of  the  vast  extent  of  the  sayings 
of  our  Lord  about  sin  and  their  solemn  character,  He 
never  allowed  Himself  to  speak  in  the  wholesale  and 
exasperating  way  about  the  sinfulness  of  human 
nature  in  which  theology,  both  scientific  and  popular, 
has  too  often  indulged.  He  never  spoke  as  if  all  bad 
people  were  equally  bad,  or  all  good  people  equally 
good.  On  both  sides  there  are  degrees  of  develop¬ 
ment  and  shades  of  difference.  When  the  seed  of  the 
Word  is  sown,  it  falls  upon  various  sorts  of  ground, 
some  more  and  some  less  congenial,  and  one  kind 
He  does  not  hesitate  to  describe  as  “  an  honest  and 
good  heart.”  On  the  other  hand,  when  the  seed  of 
goodness  begins  to  grow,  it  produces  in  some  thirty, 
in  some  sixty,  and  in  some  an  hundredfold.  In 
ordinary  human  nature  He  recognised  both  bad  and 
good  qualities,  when,  in  words  already  quoted,  He 
said  to  parents,  “Ye,  being  evil,  know  how  to  give 
good  gifts  unto  your  children.”  “  Evil  ”  they  are, 
even  the  best  of  them — and  this  seems  to  describe 
what  is  most  fundamental — yet  they  are  disposed 
and  able  to  give  good  gifts  to  their  children  ;  and 


148 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


here  His  finger  is  laid,  with  His  accustomed  certainty, 
on  the  very  point ;  because,  if  there  survive  in  human 
nature  any  vestiges  of  primitive  innocence,  these  are 
nowhere  so  unmistakeable  as  in  domestic  affection. 
It  may  be  urged  by  theology  that  even  the  best  acts 
of  human  beings,  such  as  those  prompted  by  love  to 
their  offspring,  must  be  condemned  at  least  for  im¬ 
perfection,  or  that  “  an  honest  and  good  heart  ”  owes 
its  goodness  to  the  prevenient  grace  of  God;  but 
such  refinements  are  not  in  the  manner  of  Jesus, 
who  looks  broadly  at  the  facts  of  life  and  never 
allows  the  acknowledgment  of  things  as  they  are  to 
be  stifled  on  His  lips  by  the  recollection  of  any 
small  dogmatic  formula.  Profound  as  is  His  sense  of 
the  wickedness  of  the  world  and  the  lostness  of  the 
individual,  the  ground-tone  of  His  preaching  is  not 
despair,  but  hope;  and  the  final  and  enduring  im¬ 
pression  left  on  the  mind  by  the  prolonged  and 
sympathetic  study  of  all  His  words  is,  that  even  in 
the  meanest  and  the  worst  of  the  children  of  men 
there  is  an  essence  of  divine  dignity  and  immeasurable 
value,  which  it  is  the  task  of  the  Saviour  and  of  all 
who  are  inspired  with  His  aims  to  rescue  from  the 
dangers  to  which  it  is  exposed  and  to  redeem  to  a 
destiny  of  blessedness  and  immortality. 


PART  SECOND 

VIRTUE 


REPENTANCE 


iv.  17. 

Mark  i.  15. 

Luke  v.  32. 

vii.  13,  14. 

ii.  17. 

x.  13. 

ix.  13. 

iv.  12. 

xi.  32. 

xi.  21,  28. 

vi.  12. 

xiii.  3,  5,  24, 

xii.  41. 

x.  1 

xv.  7,  10,  11- 

xviii.  3. 

xvi.  30,  31. 

xxi.  29,  32. 

xvii.  3,  4. 

xxii.  32. 

xxiv.  47. 

CHAPTER  VII. 


REPENTANCE 

IN  the  foregoing  chapters  our  Lord’s  view  of  the 
Highest  Good  has  been  presented  positively  by 
exhibiting  His  teaching  on  Blessedness,  the  Kingdom 
of  God  and  Righteousness,  and  negatively  by  setting 
forth  His  teaching  on  Sin.  Even  to  be  able  to  sin 
involves  the  possession  of  a  nature  far  different  from 
that  of  the  beasts  that  perish ;  and  the  tragedy  of 
human  sin  reveals,  by  contrast,  the  height  of  man’s 
original  destiny. 

We  now  go  on  to  that  part  of  experience  which 
the  ancients  designated  by  the  term  Virtue,  but 
which  modern  thinkers  would  call  the  Formation  of 
Character.  In  Aristotle,  as  we  saw  ,in  the  Intro¬ 
duction,  the  way  to  acquire  virtue  is  practice.  To 
do  right  may  be  difficult  at  first ;  but  every  attempt 
makes  it  easier ;  every  victory  over  temptation 
strengthens  the  virtuous  habit ;  and  by  degrees  that 
which  was  at  first  disagreeable  becomes  pleasant 
and  exhilarating.  That  there  is  profound  truth  in 
this  is  not  denied  by  Christianity ;  on  the  contrary, 
this  doctrine  of  the  philosopher  is  adopted  in  many 


152 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


a  saying  of  Holy  Writ.  But  this  is  not  the  whole 
truth  contained  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus  at  this 
point  or  even  the  most  characteristic  part  of  it. 
Here  Jesus  takes  a  way  of  His  own  and  differs 
widely  from  the  philosophers.  We  have  seen  already 
that  He  differs  from  them  on  the  subject  of  sin, 
dwelling  on  it  far  more  than  they,  taking  a  more 
serious  view  of  its  nature  and  consequences,  and 
regarding  man  as  a  being  whom  it  is  vain  to  help 
without  recognising  the  depth  of  his  fall.  In  short, 
Jesus  begins  with  the  ethical  subject  much  lower 
down  than  the  philosophers.  We  shall  see,  as  we 
proceed,  that  He  also  raises  him  far  higher,  before 
He  is  done  with  him.  Hence  the  road  is  longer, 
and  it  is  more  complex  and  far  more  original. 
We  are  here,  indeed,  entering  on  the  most  peculiar 
portion  of  the  ethical  teaching  of  Jesus,  in  which 
comes  to  light  much  of  the  genius  of  the  Christian 
system.  While  there  is  in  Christianity  an  optimism 
that  soars  far  above  the  highest  aim  of  philosophy, 
there  is  in  it,  at  the  same  time,  a  pessimism  far 
deeper  than  any  found  in  philosophy,  and  the 
heights  are  not  attainable  without  sounding  the 
depths.* 

It  was  probably  from  the  peculiar  series  of  experi- 

*  “  Es  ist  immer  ein  Massstab  fur  den  Ernst  der  sittlichen 
Forderung  und  ein  Beweis,  dass  sie  zu  neuem  Siegesgang  aufruft, 
wenn  die  Losungsworte  Wiedergeburt,  Bekehrung  hellen  Klang 
geben.” — Haering,  Das  christliche  Leben ,  p.  206. 


REPENTANCE 


153 


ences  by  which  man  rises  from  the  depths  of  sin 
to  the  heights  of  virtue  that  Christianity  received 
the  first  name  which  it  ever  bore,  when  it  was 
called  the  Way,  as  it  frequently  is  in  the  Book  of 
Acts.*  Not  only  are  such  experiences  unknown 
to  philosophy,  but  they  have  often  been  strangely 
neglected  by  theology.  In  the  traditional  practice 
of  theological  science  learned  labour  expended  on 
themes  belonging  to  the  periphery  of  Christianity, 
where  theology  marches  with  science  or  philosophy, 
has  been  far  more  secure  of  recognition  from  the 
principalities  and  powers  than  study  of  those  ex¬ 
periences  in  which  the  very  essence  of  religion 
consists.  Nevertheless  the  secret  of  the  Lord  is 
with  them  that  fear  Him,  and,  in  general,  the  class 
which,  in  the  days  of  His  flesh,  heard  Jesus  gladly 
has  made  no  mistake  in  the  books  which  it  has 
taken  to  its  heart  and  has  continued  to  read  from 
century  to  century.  At  length  in  our  day  the 
estimates  of  the  learned  world  appear  to  be  chang¬ 
ing,  and  it  looks  as  if  it  were  to  be  acknowledged 


*  ix.  2 ;  xix.  9,  23  ;  xxii.  4 ;  xxiv.  22,  with  a  capital  letter  in 
Revised  Version.  No  doubt  there  is  a  connection  also  with  the 
saying  of  our  Lord,  “  I  am  the  Way.”  More  doubtful  is  a 
connection  with  The  Two  Ways ,  a  kind  of  vade-7necum  for 
catechumens,  incorporated  in  The  Teaching  of  the  Twelve 
Apostles  and,  as  the  researches  of  Seeberg  have  shown,  much 
used  in  primitive  times ;  for  this  production  is  rather  devoid  of 
the  element  referred  to,  and  it  is  not  impossible  that  it  may  have 
been  of  Jewish  origin. 


154 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


that  the  learning  which  best  deserves  the  name  of 
theology  is  that  which  investigates  what  is  most 
characteristic  of  Christianity.  The  great  work  of 
von  Frank  on  Christian  Certainty  has  produced  an 
ample  literature,  which  is  still  growing,  and  the 
recent  work  of  Professor  James  has  so  stirred  the 
spirits  that,  all  over  the  Christian  world,  scholars 
are  directing  their  inquiries  towards  the  region 
opened  up  by  James’s  great  countryman,  Jonathan 
Edwards,  in  his  .treatise  on  the  Religious  Affections. 
It  is  a  good  sign  when  the  strongest  current  of 
theology  flows  in  a  channel  dug  for  it  by  personal 
experience.* 

*  As  welcome  signs  of  such  a  change,  I  directed  attention  in 
The  Expository  Ti?nes  recently  to  two  books  of  Professor 
Henri  Bois,  of  Montauban — Le  Reveil  ail  Pays  de  Galles  and 
Quelques  Reflexions  sur  la  Psychologie  des  Reveils ;  also  to  James’s 
Varieties  of  Religious  Experience  and  Starbuck’s  Psychology  of 
Religion.  Der  Be  griff  der  Bekehrung,  by  Johannes  Herzog,  is 
a  contribution  to  the  same  subject  from  the  Ritschlian  School. 
And,  since  the  note  referred  to  was  written,  there  have  appeared 
Vorbrodt,  Zur  religiosen  Psychologie ;  Schmidt,  Die  verschie- 
denen  Typen  religioser  Erfahrung  und  die  Psychologie ;  and 
Cutten,  The  Psychological  Phenomena  of  Christianity.  Among 
the  works  called  forth  by  von  Frank’s  System  der  christlichen 
Gewissheit  may  be  mentioned  Kostlin,  Die  Begriindung  unserer 
sittlich-religidsen  Uberzeugung ,  which  contains  a  valuable  review 
of  preceding  literature;  Wendt,  Der  Erfahrungsbeweis  fur  die 
Wahrheit  des  Christenthums ;  Schwarze,  Neue  Grundlegung 
der  Lehre  von  der  christlichen  Gewissheit ;  and  Ihmels,  Die  christ- 
liche  Gewissheit ,  ihr  letzter  Grand  und  Entstehung .  At  the  same 
time  may  be  recalled  two  older  books  of  sterling  value  :  Dale, 
The  Living  Christ  and  the  Four  Gospels ,  and  Stearns,  The 
Evidence  of  Christian  Expel  ience. 


REPENTANCE 


155 


The  first  step  in  the  upward  path  which  we  have, 
therefore,  now  to  describe  is  Repentance. 

Repentance  had  been  the  watchword  of  the 
forerunner  of  Christ,  who  preached  “  the  baptism  of 
repentance  for  the  remission  of  sins.”  Indeed,  it 
*  might  be  called  the  watchword  of  all  the  prophets  ; 
for  these  had  all  been  sent,  in  the  words  of  Isaiah, 
“to  show  the  house  of  Jacob  their  sins.”  But  our 
Lord  had  Himself  to  sound  the  same  note.  In 
Matt.  iv.  17  the  commencement  of  His  ministry 
is  described  in  these  terms:  “From  that  time  began 
Jesus  to  preach  and  to  say,  Repent,  for  the  kingdom 
of  heaven  is  at  hand  ”  ;  where  repentance  is  set 
forth  as  the  very  first  word  in  His  ministry.  And 
in  St.  Mark’s  account  of  the  sending  forth  of  the 
Twelve,  to  do  in  their  humbler  way  the  same  work 
as  their  Master,  this  is  what  is  said  :  “  They  went 
out  and  preached  that  men  should  repent,”  as  if  this 
had  been  the  sum  and  substance  of  the  Gospel. 

And  repentance,  if  understood  in  its  full  Scriptural 
sense,  is  the  sum  and  substance  of  the  Gospel.  It 
will  be  remembered  that  it  formed  an  epoch  in 
the  experience  of  Luther  when  he  discovered,  on 
examining  the  Greek  Testament,  that  the  Greek 
word  for  repentance  means  literally  a  change  of 
mind.*  In  the  practice  of  the  Roman  Church  and 
in  the  preaching  to  which  he  listened  in  his  boyhood, 
pccnitentia ,  the  Latin  equivalent,  was  used  indis- 


*  Merai/oux. 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


criminately  for  repentance  and  penance ;  so  that 
in  his  mind  repentance  was  identified  with  the 
whole  round  of  penitential  practices  prescribed  by 
the  Church.  Hence  it  was  a  great  new  light  to 
him  when  he  discovered  that  the  repentance  of  the 
Bible  is  a  change  of  heart.  In  our  own  religious 
vocabulary  the  word  is  too  much  identified  with 
contrition,  the  shame  and  pain  due  to  a  sense 
of  guilt.  Though  it  includes  these  sentiments,  its 
true  meaning  is  much  wider.  The  word  “conversion” 
would  more  accurately  express  all  that  is  included  ; 
and  it  is  not  surprising  that,  in  the  words  of  our 
Lord,  this  term  is  sometimes  used  in  the  same  sense, 
as  in  the  well-known  saying,  “  Except  ye  be  converted 
and  become  as  little  children,  ye  shall  not  enter  the 
kingdom  of  God.” 

As  the  penetration  of  Luther  discovered,  re¬ 
pentance  signifies  a  change  of  mind  ;  but  this  is  not 
so  much  in  the  sense  that  our  thoughts  about  religion 
are  altered  as  in  the  sense  that  the  mind  is  turned 
to  religion  from  other  objects.  What  is  wrong  with 
men  is  that  their  thoughts  and  feelings  are  absorbed 
in  the  wrong  objects,  the  enthusiasm  and  force  of 
the  soul  being  expended  on  things  that  are  not 
worthy  of  the  devotion  of  such  a  being  as  man  ; 
and  what  is  required  is  that  the  mind  should  be 
diverted  from  such  questions  as,  What  shall  we 
eat  ?  What  shall  we  drink  ?  and,  Wherewithal  shall  we 
be  clothed  ?  to  the  thoughts  connected  with  man’s 


REPENTANCE 


157 


lofty  origin  and  immortal  destiny.  This  drawing 
of  men  away  from  preoccupation  with  the  wrong 
objects,  that  they  may  have  just  and  influential  con¬ 
ceptions  of  the  right  ones,  has  always  been  the 
problem  of  the  religious  teacher. 

A  remarkable  peculiarity  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus 
is  that  He  seems  to  speak  as  if  repentance  were  not 
necessary  for  all,  as  when  He  observes  that  there  is 
joy  in  heaven  over  one  sinner  that  repenteth  more 
than  over  ninety-and-nine  just  persons  that  need  no 
repentance.  Does  this  mean  that  it  is  only  one  in 
a  hundred  that  needs  to  repent  ?  Jesus  was  speaking 
at  the  time  of  the  publicans  and  sinners,  and  con¬ 
trasting  them  with  the  scribes  and  Pharisees.  Certainly 
the  former  class  was  designated  by  the  one  repentant 
sinner ;  and  it  would  seem  to  follow  that  the  latter 
class  was  signified  by  the  ninety-and-nine.  Did 
Jesus,  then,  mean  that  such  persons  as  the  Pharisees 
needed  no  repentance?  We  have  already  made  our¬ 
selves  acquainted  with  His  estimate  of  the  character 
of  the  Pharisees  ;  and  it  would  not  lead  us  to  suppose 
that  He  judged  them  to  be  in  no  need  of  repentance — 
quite  the  contrary:  in  His  estimation  Pharisaic  sins 
were  of  all  sins  the  worst.  A  subtle  irony  is,  there¬ 
fore,  to  be  suspected  in  this  reference  to  the  ninety- 
and-nine  who  need  no  repentance,  the  suggestion 
being  that,  in  their  own  estimate  of  themselves,  they 
need  no  repentance,  although  in  reality  this  is  the 
clearest  evidence  that  they  do  require  it  not  less,  but 


i58 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


more  than  others.  It  was  in  exactly  the  same  vein 
that  He  said  on  a  similar  occasion,  “  I  came  not  to 
call  the  righteous,  but  sinners  to  repentance.”  On 
this  occasion  also  those  called  to  repentance  were  the 
publicans  and  sinners,  while  the  righteous  were  the 
scribes  and  Pharisees  ;  but  that  the  latter  should  be 
called  righteous  by  Jesus  could  only  be  in  irony,  if 
His  language  about  them  on  other  occasions  had  any 
justification.  This  is  confirmed  by  the  parable  of  the 
Two  Sons,' to  whom  their  father  said,  “  Go,  work  to¬ 
day  in  my  vineyard.”  The  good  one  replied,  “  I  go, 
sir,”  but  went  not ;  the  bad  one  said,  “  I  go  not,” 
but  afterwards  “  repented  and  went.”  Evidently  here 
again  we  have  the  same  two  contrasted  classes.  The 
coarse  impudence  of  the  bad  boy  certainly  required 
repentance,  and  perhaps  provoked  it  in  his  own  mind 
by  its  very  superfluity  of  naughtiness  ;  but  equally 
did  the  behaviour  of  the  good  boy  demand  repentance, 
though  repentance  was  not  so  likely  to  follow.  With 
the  same  irony  the  elder  brother  in  the  parable  of 
the  Prodigal  Son  is  described,  it  being  apparently 
conceded  that  he  is  ever  with  his  father  and  never 
has  at  any  time  transgressed  his  commandment ;  yet 
it  is  evident  that  he  required  repentance  quite  as 
much  as  his  younger  brother,  if  not  more.  But  the 
point  is  unmistakeably  decided  in  words  from  the 
Lord’s  own  mouth,  when  He  says  to  the  scribes  and 
Pharisees,  “Verily  I  say  unto  you,  that  the  publicans 
and  harlots  go  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven  before 


REPENTANCE 


*59 


you  ;  for  John  came  to  you  in  the  way  of  righteous¬ 
ness,  and  ye  believed  him  not ;  but  the  publicans 
and  the  harlots  believed  him  ;  and  ye,  when  ye  had 
seen  it,  repented  not  afterward,  that  ye  might  believe 
him.”  Here  He  distinctly  implies  that  they  ought 
to  have  repented,  and  reproaches  them  with  not 
learning  to  do  so  from  the  example  of  the  publicans 
and  sinners.  With  what  contempt  such  a  suggestion 
would  be  treated  by  them,  it  is  easy  to  understand  ; 
nevertheless  His  intention  was  perfectly  sincere. 
The  sense  of  sin,  it  has  often  been  remarked,  may  be 
in  inverse  ratio  to  its  presence.  A  saint  on  the  point 
of  passing  into  glory  may  be  poignantly  conscious  of 
being  the  chief  of  sinners,  whereas  the  most  notorious 
sinner  may  be  prepared  to  defend  himself  as  no  worse 
than  other  people.  But,  if  there  be  any  on  earth  who 
either  are  sinless  or  think  themselves  so,  Jesus  passes 
them  by  with  the  observation,  “  They  that  are  whole 
have  no  need  of  the  physician,  but  they  that  are  sick.” 

From  the  scattered  sayings  of  our  Lord  on  re¬ 
pentance  it  would  not  be  difficult  to  collect  a  clear 
idea  of  the  elements  entering  into  His  conception  of 
it ;  but  we  have  received  from  Him  one  full-length 
picture  of  repentance  ;  and  it  will  be  more  remunera¬ 
tive  to  follow  this  clue,  taking  up  more  casual  hints 
as  they  may  occur  by  the  way.  The  parable  of  the 
Prodigal  Son  contains,  indeed,  more  than  an  account 
of  conversion  or  repentance  ;  because  in  its  opening 


i6o 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


verses  we  find  a  most  suggestive  description  of  that 
which  is  the  very  opposite  of  conversion — namely, 
the  departure  of  the  soul  from  God — and  towards 
the  close  we  have  an  equally  pregnant  account  of  the 
change  which  follows  repentance ;  while  in  the 
closing  verses  we  have  a  searching  investigation  of 
the  true  inwardness  of  Pharisaism,  involving  the 
solution  of  the  problem  discussed  between  Christ 
and  His  opponents.  But,  on  the  whole,  the  parable 
of  the  Prodigal  Son  is  an  account  of  conversion  or  re¬ 


pentance  ;  and  it  is  needless  to  say  that  it  is  an  incom¬ 
parable  one.  Every  word  tells  ;  every  sentence  goes 
to  the  marrow  of  the  subject ;  scene  succeeds  scene 
in  perfect  and  easy  arrangement  ;  and  the  whole  is 
brought  to  a  harmonious  close.  We  need  not  be 
afraid  of  putting  too  much  into  this  utterance  ;  the 
only  danger  lies  in  not  seeing  deep  enough. 

The  point  in  the  parable  at  which  the  description 
of  repentance  may  be  fairly  said  to  commence  is 
when  the  Prodigal  “came  to  himself”;  and  this 
striking  phrase  may  be  said  to  show  the  first  element 
in  repentance  to  be  Awakening.  When  a  man 
awakens  out  of  sleep,  we  say  he  comes  to  himself. 
The  Greek  means  literally  “  he  entered  into  himself”  * 
— a  remarkable  phrase  ;  for  who  is  denoted  by  “he  ” 
and  who  by  “himself”?  It  sounds  as  if  in  one 
person  there  were  two  men,  the  one  of  whom  has  been 
from  home  but  now  returns.  So,  in  common  par- 


* 


els  eavTov  I\6<x>v. 


REPENTANCE 


161 

lance,  we  say,  a  man  is  “out  of  himself”  or  “beside 
himself,”  meaning  that  he  is  mad.  And,  indeed,  sin 
is  a  brief  madness ;  it  is  a  drunken  sleep,  out  of 
which  a  man  has  to  awaken  and  be  himself.*  Or 
“  he  entered  into  himself”  may  suggest  another  line 
of  reflection.  The  interior  man  may  be  conceived  as 
a  picture-gallery  or  corridor,  hung  with  the  scenes  of 
one’s  own  past,  into  which,  in  hours  of  leisure  and 
reflection,  one  can  enter  and  follow  one’s  own  course 
step  by  step  and  stage  by  stage.  Certainly  this  was 
exactly  what  the  Prodigal  did,  when,  in  the  midst  of 
the  swine,  he  sat  down  and  reflected  on  the  past. 
The  excitement  and  intoxication  had  now  gone  out 
of  his  blood  and  the  glamour  out  of  his  eyes,  and  in 
the  cold  reality  of  retrospect  he  saw  everything  in 
an  entirely  different  light.  To  get  people  thus  to  see 
things  as  they  are,  forms,  in  all  ages,  the  task  of 
religious  teachers.  “  My  people  do  not  consider,”  was 
the  standing  complaint  of  Jehovah,  speaking  through 
the  prophets.  Sometimes  it  seems  as  if  nothing  less 
than  a  miracle  would  awaken  the  unthinking.  Such 
was  the  thought  of  Dives  in  the  place  of  woe,  when 
he  begged  that  Abraham  might  be  sent  to  his  five 
brethren  ;  “  For,”  said  he,  “  if  one  went  unto  them 
from  the  dead,  they  will  repent.”  But  the  reply  of 
divine  wisdom,  “  If  they  hear  not  Moses  and  the 
prophets,  neither  will  they  be  persuaded  though  one 
rose  from  the  dead,”  indicates  the  true  means  of 

*  Horace,  Epp.  ii.  138,  says  of  a  lunatic,  Redit  ad  sese. 


II 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


162 

producing  repentance — namely,  the  faithful  preaching 
of  the  Word  of  God. 

A  second  element  in  repentance  is  Fear :  and  this 
is  indicated  in  the  words  “  I  perish  with  hunger.”  * 
These  words  may,  indeed,  in  the  first  place  rather 
express  the  deep  dissatisfaction  with  a  godless 
existence  which  also  is  a  part  of  repentance.  As  the 
Prodigal  began  with  the  best  of  everything,  but  at 
last  had  sunk  to  the  husks  that  the  swine  did  eat, 
so,  in  a  sinful  life,  though  there  is  a  stage  of  greedy 
satisfaction  with  the  things  which  gratify  natural 
desire,  yet  delight  is  succeeded  by  disgust;  in  one 
hour,  if  the  instincts  of  the  higher  nature  be 
awakened,  the  satisfactions  of  a  worldly  life  may  cease 
to  please  and  the  most  bottomless  hunger  ensue. 
But,  besides,  the  Prodigal  was  actually  confronted 
with  the  fear  of  death.  He  might  die  of  actual 
starvation,  as  many  a  one  has  done  at  his  stage  of 
want  and  degradation.  This  corresponds  with  the 
fear  of  finally  losing  the  soul  which  is  an  element  in 
repentance.  Of  this  motive  Jesus  did  not  scruple  to 
make  use,  as  we  have  already  seen  in  speaking  of  the 
final  issues  of  sin.  “  Except  ye  repent,”  He  said, 
“  ye  shall  all  likewise  perish  ”  ;  and  another  solemn 
saying  to  the  same  effect  was,  “  Fear  Him  who,  after 
He  hath  killed,  hath  power  to  cast  into  hell.”  This 
latter  saying  has  been  interpreted  of  the  Evil  One  ;  I 
should  think,  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  it  refers 


^  luiiocode  dni'Wvuai . 


REPENTANCE 


163 

to  God  ;  but,  taken  either  way,  it  conjures  up  an 
illimitable  fear.  In  our  day  there  are  those  who 
doubt  whether  this  be  a  legitimate  motive  in  religion  ; 
but  the  real  question  is,  whether  there  be  anything 
of  this  nature  lurking  in  the  future.  If  not,  of  course 
it  is  a  crime  to  darken  the  minds  of  human  beings 
with  such  a  nightmare  ;  but,  if  it  be  real,  it  may  be 
criminal  to  be  silent  about  it.  The  practice  of 
sneering  at  the  preoccupation  of  the  mind  with  the 
hopes  and  fears  of  a  future  life  was  introduced  by 
Goethe,  and  has  since  been  repeated  by  a  number  of 
shallow  spirits  ;  but  it  was  not  worthy  of  the  wisdom 
of  that  great  man,  and  at  all  events  it  was  in  the 
face  of  the  practice  of  a  Greater  than  he. 

A  third  element  of  repentance  is  a  Vision  of  Good  ; 
and  this  is  indicated  in  the  parable  by  the  words, 
“  How  many  hired  servants  of  my  father’s  have  bread 
enough  and  to  spare.”  *  The  question  has  been  much 
discussed  in  theology,  whether,  according  to  the 
teaching  of  the  New  Testament,  the  title  “sons  of 
God  ”  belongs  only  to  the  saints  or  to  all  men. 
However  the  question  may  be  answered  in  regard 
to  other  teachers  in  the  New  Testament,  it  is  clear 
from  this  parable  that  Jesus  looked  upon  all  men 
as  being  in  a  sense  children  of  God,  however  far  they 
might  be  from  living  up  to  their  dignity.  The 
Prodigal  was  a  son  even  in  the  far  country ;  he  could 
remember  the  paternal  home ;  and  it  was  this  that 

*  jrepicrcrevovcnv  aprajv. 


164 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


drew  him  back.  This  is  'only  stating  in  metaphorical 
language  that  man  is  a  religious  being,  dowered  with 
religious  instincts,  which,  though  neglected  and  even 
outraged,  reassert  themselves  in  moments  of  reflection 
and  fill  the  soul  with  a  divine  longing.  Man  is  an 
immortal  being ;  and  the  passion  for  immortality, 
reawakening,  may  make  every  earthly  possession 
appear  trivial.  There  is  no  more  potent  means  of 
awakening  this  longing  than  acquaintance  with  those 
who  are  enjoying  the  fatherhood  of  God  themselves 
in  its  fuller  sense ;  for,  although  Jesus  acknowledged 
a  certain  sonship  common  to  all,  He,  at  the  same 
time,  endeavoured  to  produce  a  realisation  of  this 
sonship  very  different  from  the  vague  aspiration 
after  an  unattained  good  which  may  arise  in  the 
heart  of  the  common  man.  It  was  in  this  sense 
of  unclouded  sonship  that  He  placed  the  ideal  of 
human  happiness  ;  and  the  sight  of  those  who  are 
in  the  enjoyment  of  it  awakens  in  the  careless  and 
sinning  the  sense  of  what  they  are  missing.  Wherever 
there  are  Christians  living  a  life  of  consistency  and 
peace,  there  will  be  in  their  vicinity  movements  of 
uneasiness  like  that  which  arose  in  the  Prodigal  at 
the  vision  in  his  mind’s  eye  of  the  paternal  home. 
Jesus  Himself  must  have  diffused  such  subtle  im¬ 
pressions  on  every  side  ;  for,  amidst  the  innumerable 
distractions  to  which  He  was  exposed,  it  was  manifest 
that,  at  the  heart  of  His  life,  there  was  a  great  central 
peace,  and  amidst  His  sorrows  it  could  be  seen  that 


REPENTANCE 


He  was  inwardly  crowned  with  joy.  The  sonship 
in  Himself,  of  which  He  testified,  awoke  in  men  the 
consciousness  of  their  own. 

A  fourth  element  of  repentance  is  Confession ; 
and  on  this  great  stress  is  laid  in  the  parable.  No 
wonder  :  there  is  no  more  vital  element  in  this 
state  of  mind.  To  recur  again  for  a  moment  to  the 
image  of  entering  into  oneself :  the  meditative  mind 
goes  from  room  to  room  in  the  interior  galleries  of 
reminiscence,  tracing  back  the  scenes  and  incidents 
of  the  past ;  but  at  last  it  comes  to  one  room  in 
which  there  is  only  a  single  figure ;  and  before  this 
object  the  Prodigal  stands  transfixed — because  it  is 
his  father.  Of  him  he  had  long  thought  little,  try¬ 
ing  even  to  forget  him  ;  but  now  the  familiar 
features  look  down  on  him  :  the  venerable  figure, 
the  melting  eye,  the  gentle  smile — all  sink  into  his 
heart  ;  till,  casting  himself  in  imagination  before  it, 
he  cries,  “  Father,  I  have  sinned.”  And,  in  the  sub¬ 
sequent  meeting  with  his  father,  this  scene  is  repeated. 
In  his  address  to  his  father  there  is  the  genuine 
accent  of  repentance.  Once,  when  he  was  fretting 
against  the  discipline  of  home  and  planning  a  way 
of  escape,  he  called  his  conduct  Independence  ;  in 
the  far  country,  when  bright  eyes  were  shining  on 
him  and  soft  arms  encircling  him,  he  called  it 
Pleasure ;  later,  after  he  had  run  through  his  means, 
and  friends  and  lovers  had  forsaken  him,  he  called 
it  Ill-luck ;  even  when  he  commenced  his  reflections 


i66 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


in  the  course  of  coming  to  himself,  he  only  called 
it  Folly ;  but  now  he  has  found  the  right  name, 
when  he  confesses,  “  I  have  sinned.”  Confession 
deepens  the  sense  of  sin  in  the  mind  of  him  who 
confesses.  It  separates  the  man  from  the  sin,  being 
a  kind  of  violent  ejection  of  the  latter.  But  it  has 
an  influence,  too,  on  him  against  whom  we  have 
sinned.  It  has  a  kind  of  atoning  power.  The  person 
to  whom  a  confession  is  made  is  thereby  provoked 
to  lift  up  the  penitent  who  has  voluntarily  cast 
himself  down  at  his  feet.  Jesus  expressed  His  sense 
of  the  extraordinary  virtue  residing  in  it  when  He 
said,  “If  thy  brother  trespass  against  thee,  rebuke 
him  ;  and  if  he  repent,  forgive  him  ;  and  if  he  trespass 
against  thee  seven  times  in  a  day,  and  turn  again 
to  thee,  saying,  I  repent,  thou  shalt  forgive  him.” 
But  the  best  of  confession  is  that  it  brings  the  sinner 
and  the  God  sinned  against  face  to  face ;  for  the 
core  of  repentance  is  to  recognise,  not  what  our 
sinful  life  has  been  to  ourselves,  or  even  to  others, 
but  what  it  has  been  to  God. 

A  fifth  element  in  repentance  is  Decision  ;  and 
this  is  embodied  in  the  parable,  in  the  words,  “  I 
will  arise  and  go  to  my  father.”  *  One  reason  why 
“  repentance  ”  is  not  so  good  a  translation  of  the 
New  Testament  term  as  “conversion,”  is  that  it  is 
too  frequently  identified  with  a  certain  kind  of  senti- 


*  ’Avaarras  nopevaopai  npos  tov  ware  pa  pov 


REPENTANCE 


167 


raent  apart  from  action.  There  is  a  great  deal  of 
penitential  sentiment  that  ends  in  nothing.  The 
drunkard  is  said  to  repent  when,  on  awakening  from 
a  debauch  with  pockets  empty,  a  brain  on  fire,  and 
a  throat  like  an  open  sepulchre,  he  calls  himself  fool 
and  madman  ;  but  in  nine  cases  out  of  ten  he  does 
nothing  ;  the  fit  of  remorse  passes  ;  and,  the  next 
time  temptation  offers,  he  succumbs  again.  Unless 
remorse  culminates  in  action,  it  is  not  deserving  of 
the  name  of  repentance.  The  fear  of  danger  must 
be  strong  enough  to  force  the  Prodigal  to  his  feet, 
and  the  vision  of  good  attractive  enough  to  draw  him 
on  in  the  right  direction.  It  is  not  even  superfluous 
that  it  is  added,  “  And  he  arose,  and  came  to  his 
father.”  Many  a  one  has  gone  the  length  of  saying, 
“  I  will  arise  and  go  to  my  father,”  and  yet  has  never 
returned  home.  Between  the  far  country  and  his 
home  the  Prodigal  may  have  had  to  pass  through 
the  city  where  his  substance  had  been  wasted  ;  and 
there  some  would  be  willing,  for  old  acquaintance’ 
sake,  to  invite  him  to  the  old  haunts,  or  even  spend 
a  trifle  on  his  entertainment  ;  while  others  might 
scoff  at  the  idea  of  his  return  in  rags  to  a  respect¬ 
able  home.  At  all  events  it  is  certain  that,  whenever 
anyone  resolves  to  quit  the  far  country  and  return 
to  his  Father,  obstacles  are  placed  in  the  way  and 
desperate  efforts  made  to  turn  him  back.  “  Strait,” 
said  the  Great  Teacher,  “  is  the  gate  ;  and  few  there 
be  that  find  it.” 


1 68 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


Thus  has  an  exposition  been  attempted  of  the 
portion  of  this  parable  most  directly  bearing  on 
repentance,  the  other  sayings  of  our  Lord  on  the 
subject  being  at  the  same  time  woven  in.  Each 
of  the  five  elements  we  have  thus  found  in  repentance 
might  be  a  name  for  the  whole.  In  experience 
sometimes  one  of  these  is  more  prominent  and 
sometimes  another  ;  so  that  there  is  ample  provision 
for  variety  in  religious  history.  Almost  better,  how¬ 
ever,  than  even  the  parable  of  the  Prodigal  Son  as 
a  guide  to  the  mind  of  the  Saviour  on  this  subject 
would  be  an  exposition  of  the  actual  cases  of  repent¬ 
ance  or  conversion  recorded  in  His  ministry. 

One  such  case  of  profound  significance  is  that  of 
Zacchaeus.  How  long  this  publican  may  have  known 
something  about  Christ  we  are  not  informed  ;  but,  on 
the  whole,  his  case  is  one  of  sudden  conversion,  and  it 
was  due  principally  to  the  attractive  power  of  Christ, 
especially  of  His  magnanimity  and  compassion. 
Zacchaeus  stood  and  said  unto  the  Lord  :  “  Behold, 
Lord,  the  half  of  my  goods  I  give  to  the  poor ; 
and,  if  I  have  taken  anything  from  any  man  by 
false  accusation,  I  restore  him  fourfold.”  In  his 
latest  exposition  of  these  words — in  The  Expositor  s 
Greek  Testament — the  late  Dr.  Bruce  interprets  them 
as  an  account  of  the  habitual  procedure  of  Zacchaeus 
before  he  met  with  Jesus  ;  so  that  what  Jesus  did 
was  not  to  make  Zacchaeus  a  good  man,  but  to 
make  the  world,  which  had  misunderstood  him,  aware 


REPENTANCE 


169 


how  good  he  was.  Zacchaeus  was  a  hidden  diamond, 
doing  acts  of  justice  and  kindness  by  stealth  and 
utterly  demolishing  the  Pharisaic  and  the  popular 
conception  of  a  publican.  It  cannot  be  denied  that 
the  words  of  this  verse  by  themselves  might  bear 
this  construction,  or  that  in  such  an  interpretation 
there  is  a  certain  piquancy.  But  what  becomes  of 
the  words  that  follow,  “To-day  is  salvation  come 
to  this  house,”  or  of  the  fervent  words  of  Jesus 
immediately  afterwards,  “  The  Son  of  man  is  come 
to  seek  and  to  save  that  which  was  lost  ”  ?  It  is 
true,  these  words  express  the  joy  of  discovery  ;  but 
the  discovery  is  a  more  sacred  one  than  the  un¬ 
earthing  of  the  good  deeds  of  a  misunderstood  moral 
hero.  Anyone  might  have  made  such  a  discovery  ; 
but  the  discovery  made  by  Jesus  was  one  possible 
only  to  Himself ;  and  the  whole  scene  has  to  be 
emptied  of  its  significance  and  separated  from  the 
others  in  the  Gospels  which  exhibit  the  Saviour  in 
the  very  act  of  transforming  great  sinners  into  great 
saints,  if  this  meaning  is  thrust  upon  it. 

In  the  conversion  of  Zacchaeus,  a  noteworthy 
feature  is  Restitution — a  duty  which  ought  to  be 
preached  far  more  than  it  is.  Nothing  exhibits  more 
impressively  the  genuineness  of  true  repentance  than 
an  earnest  effort  to  undo  the  evil  done  in  the  pre¬ 
ceding  life,  and  this  is  rendered  peculiarly  impressive 
to  the  common  man  if  it  includes  the  refunding  of 
money  obtained  in  indefensible  ways.  In  the  recent 


170 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


Welsh  Revival  this  was  a  prominent  feature  ;  and 
Mr.  D.  L.  Moody  used  to  introduce  this  subject  in 
his  addresses  with  remarkable  results.  The  other 
effect  on  Zacchaeus  was  more  commonplace — the 
resolution  to,  give  half  his  goods  to  the  poor.  We 
see  a  kindred  but  perhaps  a  finer  trait  of  repentance 
in  the  case  of  another  converted  publican — Matthew' 
— when  he  assembles  the  former  companions  of  his 
sinful  life,  to  give  them  an  opportunity  of  meeting 
and  hearing  the  Master  whom  he  had  resolved  to 
follow. 

But  the  most  impressive  instance  of  repentance 
narrated  in  the  earthly  life  of  our  Saviour  is  un¬ 
doubtedly  that  of  the  Woman  who  was  a  Sinner,  the 
account  of  which  we  owe  to  the  graceful  pen  of 
St.  Luke.  If,  through  the  movements  of  her  body 
— for  she  uttered  not  a  word — and  through  the  words 
in  which  Jesus  commented  on  her  action,  we  could 
penetrate  to  the  depths  of  her  soul,  we  should  see 
repentance  in  its  purest  form.  It  was  in  flight  from 
a  besetting  sin  and  a  lost  life,  and  in  pursuit  of  a 
better  life,  the  vision  of  which  had  risen  before  her 
eyes,  that  she  ventured  in  where  she  dared  not  well 
be  seen.  There  was  a  certain  boldness  in  her  action  ; 
but  this  was  necessary  in  order  to  make  a  public 
break  with  the  past.  On  the  other  hand,  humility 
pressed  her  down  to  the  earth  ;  shame  constrained 
her  to  unbind  her  hair  and  let  its  heavy  tresses  fall 
to  hide  her  burning  blushes ;  sorrow  for  her  sins, 


REPENTANCE 


171 


which  were  many,  burst  in  tears  from  her  eyes. 
The  shattering  of  the  box  of  ointment  may  have 
been  the  final  sacrifice  of  an  instrument  of  her  evil 
calling.  But  it  would  not  be  easy  even  to  name 
all  the  emotions  surging  through  her  soul — timidity, 
admiration,  gratitude,  love,  enthusiasm.  This  was 
repentance :  it  is  an  upheaval  of  the  nature  from  its 
foundations  ;  it  turns  the  life  upside  down  ;  it  is  a 
decisive  breach  with  the  past ;  it  is  a  great  venture 
for  the  future.* 


*  If  Professor  Bruce  wrote  with  imperfect  wisdom  on  Zacchaeus, 
we  have  from  his  pen,  in  his  choice  book  entitled  The  Galilean 
Gospel ,  a  noble  exposition  of  the  case  of  the  Woman  who  was 
a  Sinner,  from  which  a  few  sentences  may  be  quoted.  “Jesus 
believed  in  the  possibility  of  moral  transformation.  Sin  He 
knew  and  declared  to  be  a  bondage,  but  He  did  not  regard  it 
as  a  fixed  final  doom.  The  soul  might  shake  off  its  fetters  ; 
a  powerful  reaction  might  take  place  in  the  conscience  at  any 
moment,  resulting  in  complete  and  permanent  emancipation.  .  .  . 
A  second  item  in  the  permanent  didactic  significance  of  this 
incident  is,  that  much  sin  can  be  repented  of  and  therefore 
forgiven.  ‘  Her  sins,  which  are  many,  are  forgiven.’  There 
is  no  reason  in  this  universe,  Christ  says  in  effect,  why  a 
grievous  offender  against  moral  laws  should  not  enter  into 
peace.  All  things  work  together  for  his  good,  even  the  un¬ 
cancelled  ills  of  his  own  state,  and  in  the  state  of  others  injured 
by  his  misdeeds ;  the  one  working  in  him  meekness  and  patience, 
the  other  awakening  in  him  a  mighty  desire  to  be  henceforth 
a  blessing  instead  of  a  curse  to  his  fellow-creatures.  .  .  .  Happy 
for  the  world  if  this  part  of  Christ’s  Gospel  be  true.  For  the 
world  does  not  consist  for  the  most  part  of  little  sinners.  Men 
and  women  in  vast  numbers  go  wrong  greatly,  tragically.  A 
gospel  which  excluded  them  would  be  altogether  a  one-sided, 
mean,  uninteresting  affair,  bringing  a  petty  salvation  to  people 


172 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


of  petty  character,  the  elect  circle  of  moral  mediocrity,  that 
supplies  no  theme  to  the  historian,  the  dramatist,  the  artist,  or 
the  preacher.  .  .  .  Yet  another  lesson  of  this  incident  is  that  a 
great  sinner  may  become  a  great  saint.  The  ratioiiale  of  this  is 
simple.  A  great  sinner,  penitent  and  forgiven,  will  love  much. 
He  will  be  characterized  by  great  devotion  to  the  Redeemer. 
But  devotion  to  Christ  is.  the  cardinal  Christian  virtue,  the 
mother  of  all  the  virtues.  Again,  a  great  sinner  means  a  man 
of  great,  misdirected  energy,  full  of  passion  and  life-force. 
When  he  is  converted,  he  does  not  lose  his  energy.  The 
driving  power  remains.  All  that  takes  place  is  that  the  power 
receives  a  new  direction  and  is  utilised  for  new  purposes.  Made 
free  from  sin,  it  becomes  the  servant  of  righteousness,  and  in 
this  service  gains  distinction  equal  to  its  former  bad  notoriety 
in  the  service  of  evil.”  Then  Dr.  Bruce  quotes  the  following 
sentences  of  marvellous  beauty  from  Bunyan’s  Jerusalem  Sinner 
Saved:  “Alas,  Christ  has  but  little  thanks  for  the  saving  of 
little  sinners.  To  whom  little  is  forgiven,  the  same  loveth 
little.  He  gets  not  water  for  His  feet  by  His  saving  of  such 
sinners.  There  are  abundance  of  dry-eyed  Christians  in  the 
world,  and  abundance  of  dry-eyed  duties  too — duties  that  were 
never  wetted  with  the  tears  of  contrition  and  repentance,  nor 
sweetened  with  the  great  sinner’s  box  of  ointment.  Wherefore 
His  way  is  oftentimes  to  step  out  of  the  way,  to  Jericho,  to 
Samaria,  to  the  country  of  the  Gergasenes,  to  the  coasts  of 
Tyre  and  Sidon,  and  also  to  Mount  Calvary,  that  He  may  lay 
hold  of  such  sinners  as  will  love  Him  tOjHis  liking.” 


FAITH 


Matt. 


t 


viii.  io,  26. 

ix.  22,  28, 

29. 

xi.  6,  28. 

xiii.  44,  46. 

xiv.  31. 

xv.  28. 

xvi.  8. 

xvii.  17,  20. 
xviii.  6. 
xxi.  21,  22, 

32. 

xxm.  23. 
xxiv.  13,  23, 
26. 


Mark  i.  15. 

iii.  13. 

iv.  12,  20,  40. 

v.  30,  36. 

vi.  6,  50. 

viii.  17-21. 

ix.  19,  23,  42. 

x.  14,  15,  21, 
52- 

xi.  22-24. 
xiii.  II. 


Luke  vi.  47. 

vii.  9,  50. 

viii.  2,  1.3,  25, 
48,  50. 

xiv.  17. 

xvi.  16. 

xvii.  6,  19. 
xviii.  8,  22,  42. 
xxii.  32,  67. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 


FAITH 


S  has  been  seen  above,  the  first  step  upwards, 


Xjl  out  of  unrighteousness  towards  Christian 
character,  is  repentance  ;  and  now  we  go  on  to  the 
second,  which  is  Faith. 

In  his  address  at  Miletus  to  the  elders  of  Ephesus, 
reported  in  the  twentieth  chapter  of  Acts,  St.  Paul 
characterized  his  own  activity,  extending  over  three 
years,  in  the  capital  of  the  province  of  Asia,  by 
saying  that  he  had  testified  to  both  Jews  and  Greeks 
“repentance  towards  God  and  faith  towards  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ.”  There  is  no  reason  to  believe 
that  the  scope  of  his  preaching  was  narrowed  down 
to  any  scrupulously  exclusive  range  of  topics ;  for 
his  writings  testify  that  in  this  respect  his  line  of 
conduct  was  always  singularly  free  and  catholic ;  yet, 
however  widely  his  preaching  ranged,  it  always 
returned  to  two  topics,  which  would  be  remembered 
by  his  hearers  when  all  details  were  forgotten — 
repentance  and  faith.  But  the  repentance  preached 
by  St.  Paul  is  expressly  characterized  by  himself  as 
directed  “  towards  God,”  and  the  faith  as  directed 


176 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


“  towards  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.”  Christ  was,  then, 
the  object  of  faith  in  the  preaching  of  the  Apostle. 
But  the  question  may  be  raised,  whether  Christ  was 
also  the  object  of  faith  in  His  own  preaching.  In 
his  recently  published  book,  The  Essence  of  Chris - 
tianity ,  Professor  Harnack  has  maintained  that  Christ 
did  not  enter  as  an  element  into  His  own  preaching  r 
He  preached  faith,  indeed,  but  it  was  faith  towards 
God,  not  towards  Himself.*  Thus  there  would  be  a 
fundamental  difference  between  the  testimony  of  St. 
Paul  and  that  of  the  Founder  of  Christianity  ;  but  we 
must  see  whether  the  drawing  of  such  a  distinction 
is  justified. 

The  prominence  of  faith  in  the  scheme  of  doctrine 
proceeding  from  St.  Paul  is  so  manifest  that  it  cannot 
escape  the  most  careless  eye.  But  faith  holds  a 
position  hardly  less  prominent  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus, 
although  it  is  introduced  in  an  entirely  different  way. 

Jesus  expressed  great  satisfaction  with  any  unusual 
exhibition  of  faith.  Thus,  when  a  centurion,  who 
resided  at  Capernaum,  encountered  Him  at  a  distance 
from  that  town  and,  in  language  of  singular  freshness 
and  force,  expressed  the  conviction  that  Jesus  was 
able  to  heal  his  son  with  a  word,  without  going  to 
the  place  where  the  patient  lay,  it  is  reported  that 
Jesus,  having  heard  it,  marvelled,  and  said  to  those 
who  followed  :  “  V erily,  I  say  unto  you,  I  have  not 


*  “  Nicht  der  Sohn,  sondern  allein  der  Vater  gehort  in  das 
Evangelium,  wie  es  Jesus  verkiindigt  hat,  hinein,”  p.  91. 


FAITH 


177 


found  so  great  faith,  no,  not  in  Israel.”  Similarly, 
when  the  Syrophcenician  Woman  divined  the  willing¬ 
ness  of  His  heart  beneath  the  roughness  of  His 
manner,  expressing,  in  terms  even  more  original 
than  those  employed  by  the  centurion,  her  belief 
that  He  would  not  refuse  to  help  her,  He  exclaimed  : 
“  O  woman,  great  is  thy  faith  ;  be  it  unto  thee  even 
as  thou  wilt.”  Socrates  used  to  say  of  himself,  that 
he  was  to  his  disciples  what  the  midwife  is  to  a 
woman  in  labour,  delivering  them  of  the  births  of 
their  own  minds  ;  and  this  maieutic  office,  which 
Socrates  discharged  to  knowledge,  Jesus  may  be 
said  to  have  discharged  to  faith.  As  a  sympathetic 
teacher  is  quick  to  mark  the  dawning  of  talent,  and 
tempts  it  forth  by  every  kind  of  artifice,  so,  wherever 
Jesus  discerned  the  slightest  sign  of  faith,  He 
trimmed  the  smoking  flax  with  unfailing  assiduity. 
Thus,  when  He  was  on  His  way  with  Jairus  to  the 
deathbed  of  his  daughter,  and  a  messenger  met  them 
with  the  news  that  the  little  maid  had  actually 
expired,  Jesus  turned  instantly  to  the  father  and, 
to  prevent  him  from  being  staggered  by  the  evil 
tidings,  said  :  “  Be  not  afraid  :  only  believe.”  But 
the  most  remarkable  instance  of  this  kind  was  that 
of  the  father  of  the  demoniac  boy,  who  met  Jesus,  as 
He  descended  from  the  Mount  of  Transfiguration, 
and  begged  for  His  compassion.  Demoralised  by 
the  inability  of  the  apostles  to  heal  his  son,  the  poor 
man  had  almost  fallen  into  despair  and  appealed  to 


12 


i78 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


Jesus  with  the  unworthy  phrase  :  “If  thou  canst  do 
anything.”  But  Jesus  at  once  pulled  him  up  with 
the  rejoinder :  “  If  thou  canst :  *  all  things  are 

possible  to  him  that  believeth.”  Thus  did  Jesus 
draw  forth  faith  almost  with  violence ;  but  the  harsh 
method  was  successful  ;  for  the  man  replied,  with 
tears — and  never  was  there  a  more  touching  example 
of  faith  struggling  with  unbelief  and  overcoming 
it — “Lord,  I  believe;  help  Thou  mine  unbelief.” 

If  Jesus  thus  delighted  in  the  display  of  faith,  He 
was  correspondingly  disappointed  at  any  conspicuous 
evidence  of  the  lack  of  it ;  and  too  often  it  was  His 
fortune  to  encounter  this  state  of  mind.  Even  among 
the  Twelve  faith  was  ever  and  anon  breaking  down 
in  the  face  of  some  new  emergency  ;  hence  a  common 
form  of  address  to  them  was  :  “O  ye  of  little 
faith  !  ”  and  one  of  the  very  last  phrases  in  which  He 
apostrophized  them,  before  leaving  them  altogether, 
was:  “O  fools,  and  slow  of  heart  to  believe!”  If 
this  was  the  case  with  apostles,  it  was  no  wonder 
that  He  should  meet  with  irresponsiveness  outside 
the  circle  of  His  followers :  His  fellow-countrymen 
He  called  “  a  faithless  generation  ” ;  and  of  His 
fellow-townsmen  at  Nazareth  it  is  narrated  that  He 
“  marvelled  ”  at  their  unbelief. 

While,  however,  it  is  true  that  faith  occupies  in  the 
teaching  of  Christ  a  place  so  prominent,  it  cannot  be 

*  Mark  ix.  2^.  This  is  one  of  the  gems  of  the  Revised 
Version. 


FAITH 


179 


alleged  with  truth  that  it  has  in  His  teaching  the 
same  simple  sense  as  in  the  epistles  of  St.  Paul.  On 
the  contrary,  the  word  “  faith,”  together  with  the 
corresponding  verb  “  believe,”  has  in  the  teaching  of 
Christ  a  remarkable  variety  of  meanings,  and  it  is 
evident  that  we  can  hope  to  obtain  a  correct  and 
comprehensive  knowledge  of  His  mind  on  this  great 
subject  only  by  a  careful  study  of  them  all. 

When  He  says  :  “  Consider  the  lilies  of  the  field, 
how  they  grow  :  they  toil  not,  neither  do  they  spin  : 
and  yet  I  say  unto  you,  that  even  Solomon  in  all  his 
glory  was  not  arrayed  like  one  of  these.  Wherefore, 
if  God  so  clothe  the  grass  ot  the  field,  which  to-day 
is  and  to-morrow  is  cast  into  the  oven,  shall  He  not 
much  more  clothe  you,  O  ye  of  little  faith  ?  ”  it  is 
evident  that  the  faith  recommended  is  trust  in  God’s 
providence — the  belief  that  He  means  well  by  all  His 
creatures  and  will  supply  the  bodily  wants  of  those 
whom  He  has  allowed  to  be  born  into  the  world. 
Not  dissimilar  to  this  are  the  frequent  utterances  in 
which  He  recommends  believing  prayer,  as  wrhen  He 
says  :  “  And  all  things  whatsoever  ye  shall  ask  in 
prayer,  believing,  ye  shall  receive.”  No  doubt  this 
faith  might  be  carried  up  to  a  higher  plane  than  that 
of  the  purely  natural  life :  it  might  relate  directly  to 
the  kingdom  of  God  and  to  work  for  that  kingdom  ; 
but  it  seems  to  begin  on  the  purely  natural  ground 
and  to  be  an  inference  from  the  general  relation  of 
God  to  all  His  intelligent  creatures. 


i8o 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


Secondly,  faith,  in  the  mouth  of  Jesus,  frequently 
means  belief  in  His  own  miraculous  powers.  When 
the  diseased  came  seeking  to  be  cured,  He  would 
ask  :  “  Believe  ye  that  I  am  able  to  do  this  ?  ”  When 
they  had  been' cured,  He  assured  them  that  it  was 
their  faith  which  had  made  them  whole  ;  and  in  at 
least  one  passage  we  are  told  that  He  could  do  no 
mighty  works  in  a  certain  place  because  of  unbelief. 
Akin  to  this  was  the  power  of  working  miracles  with 
which,  He  promised,  faith  would  endow  the  disciples : 
“  These  signs  shall  follow  them  that  believe :  in  My 
name  shall  they  cast  out  devils ;  they  shall  speak 
with  new  tongues  ;  they  shall  take  up  serpents  ;  and, 
if  they  shall  drink  any  deadly  thing,  it  shall  not 
hurt  them  ;  they  shall  lay  their  hands  on  the  sick, 
and  they  shall  recover.”  * 

Thirdly,  He  attributes  to  faith  the  forgiveness  of 
sins  and  the  salvation  of  the  soul.  Thus,  to  the 
Woman  who  was  a  Sinner  He  said  :  “Thy  faith  hath 
saved  thee  ”  ;  and  in  the  parable  of  the  Sower  He  says 
of  a  certain  class  of  hearers,  that  “  the  devil  cometh 
and  taketh  away  the  word  out  of  their  hearts,  lest 
they  should  believe  and  be  saved.”  Sayings  of  this 
sort  are  obviously  those  most  akin  to  the  character¬ 
istic  utterances  of  St.  Paul  on  the  same  subject ;  but 
it  cannot  be  honestly  affirmed  that  they  are  numerous 
among  the  words  of  Jesus. 

That  which  is  characteristic  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus 


*  Reading,  however,  more  than  doubtful. 


FAITH 


181 


on  the  subject  of  faith  is  the  variety  of  senses  in 
which  the  term  is  employed  ;  but  is  there  no  point 
of  view  from  which  these  can  be  all  harmonized  ? 
I  venture  to  think  there  is,  and  it  is  a  very  simple 
one. 

Although  faith  is  a  theological  term  and  is  of 
incessant  occurrence  in  the  language  of  religion,  it 
is,  nevertheless,  in-  the  first  place  a  purely  human 
act ;  it  is  an  element  in  ordinary  life,  without  which 
the  world  could  not  go  on  for  a  single  day.  Every 
hour  we  are  performing  acts  ,  of  faith  towards  our 
fellow-men,  as  well  as  acts  of  disbelief ;  and,  if  we 
analyze  what  faith  towards  man  is,  we  shall  obtain 
a  key  to  the  question  what  faith  towards  God  or 
Christ  is.  It  is  entirely  in  accord  with  the  mind 
of  Christ  to  look  upon  the  life  of  faith  toward  men 
as  a  school  in  which  to  acquire  a  knowledge  of  faith 
+£>n  a  higher  level.  What,  then,  is  it  we  do  when 
we  put  faith  in  a  fellow-creature  ?  Is  it  not  this — 
that  we  accept  him  as  he  offers  himself  to  us,  and 
act  accordingly?  Thus,  a  teacher  of  any  science 
puts  himself  forward  as  an  adept  in  his  particular 
department ;  and  those  who  wish  to  acquire  that 
science,  if  they  believe  in  him,  wait  on  his  prelections 
and  accept  with  confidence  the  information  he  con¬ 
veys.  Or,  in  friendship,  when  anyone  exhibits  the 
signs  of  affection,  to  put  faith  in  him  is  to  receive 
these  as  not  counterfeit,  but  genuine,  and  permit 
our  own  affection  and  esteem  to  go  out  in  return. 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


182 


Exactly  similar  is  faith  in  God.  Though  hidden 
from  our  eyes,  He  has  in  different  forms  sent  us 
messages  and  communications ;  and  to  receive  these 
with  confidence  and  act  upon  them  is  faith ;  which 
may,  therefore,  be  defined  as  the  sympathetic  and 
appreciative  response  of  the  human  mind  and  heart 
to  divine  revelation,  in  whatever  form  it  may  come. 
This  one  idea  will  be  found  to  include  all  the  dif¬ 
ferent  senses  in  which  Jesus  speaks  of  faith. 

Thus,  in  the  works  of  nature  God  has  sent  to 
all  mortals  a  message,  which  the  observant  mind 
cannot  mistake.  He  feeds  the  ravens  and  clothes 
the  lilies — what  is  this  but  an  intimation  that  He 
will  feed  and  clothe  those  who  know  themselves 
to  be  more  valuable  in  the  divine  eyes  than  birds 
or  flowers  ?  And,  when  we  receive  this  message 
with  intelligence  and  gratitude,*  and,  therefore,  live 
without  carefulness,  this  is  faith. 

Again,  God  has  sent  us  a  very  full  and  varied 
message  in  His  Word,  wherein  He  has  signified 
His  own  thoughts  and  wishes  about  many  things 
that  intimately  concern  us  ;  and,  when  we  turn  to 
the  Scriptures  for  information  on  these  subjects  and, 
having  found  it,  act  upon  it,  we  are  putting  faith 
in  God.  “  O  fools,  and  slow  of  heart,”  said  Jesus, 
“  to  believe  all  that  the  prophets  have  written.” 
Every  prophet  was,  indeed,  in  his  own  person,  an 
embodied  message  from  Heaven,  and  faith  was 
tested  by  the  manner  in  which  he  was  received.  If 


FAITH 


his  appearance  was  welcomed,  if  his  utterances  were 
attended  to  with  reverence  and  the  reforms  he 
advocated  carried  out,  those  so  acting  displayed  faith 
in  God  ;  whereas  the  opposite  mode  of  action  was 
a  manifestation  of  unbelief.  “John,”  said  Jesus, 
“  came  unto  you  in  the  way  of  righteousness, 
and  ye  believed  him  not ;  but  the  publicans  and 
harlots  believed  him  ;  and  ye,  when  ye  had  seen 
it,  repented  not  afterwards,  that  ye  might  believe 
him.” 

It  is  only  the  completion  of  the  same  line  of 
reflection  to  say  that  Christ  Himself  was  an  em¬ 
bodied  message  from  God  to  the  world,  His  various 
modes  of  activity — such  as  His  discourses,  His  works 
of  healing,  and  the  influence  of  His  character — being 
the  syllables  and  the  sentences  of  this  message,  and 
the  whole  together  forming  one  grand  expression 
of  the  mind  and  heart  of  God,  offering  saving  help 
to  the  children  of  men  ;  and  to  attend  to  this 
message,  to  welcome  it  with  gratitude,  to  place 
confidence  in  it  and  to  act  on  it — this  was  faith. 
This  is  the  most  vital  point  in  the  doctrine  of  Jesus 
on  this  subject  ;  and  it  shows  that  faith  is,  at  the 
core,  not  the  acceptance  of  beliefs  or  dogmas,  but 
a  relation  or  bearing  towards  Christ  Himself — a 
transaction  between  person  and  person.* 

*  “  1st  uns  klar  gevvorden,  dass  das,  was  Gott  uns  sagen  will 
am  deutlichsten  darin  ausgedriickt  ist,  dass  uns  die  Person 
Jesu  gegeben  ist,  so  beginnt  unsere  Andacht  in  Ehrfurcht 


184 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


The  earthly  life  of  the  Son  of  God  was  a  school 
of  faith,  and  He  was  a  teacher  of  the  art  of  faith. 
His  miracles,  for  example,  were  intended  to  evoke 
not  only  faith  in  Him  as  a  wonder-worker,  but  faith 
in  Him  also  as  a  source  of  higher  benefits.  While 
many  reasons  may  be  assigned  for  the  working  of 
miracles,  the  chief  must  always  be  this — that  the 
healing  of  the  body  illustrated  the  salvation  of  the 
soul.  As  the  bodies  of  men  are  afflicted  with  many 
varieties  of  disease,  so  are  their  souls  with  many 
kinds  of  sins  ;  and,  by  grappling  with  all  bodily  ills, 
as  these  were  brought  to  Him,  Jesus  signified  that 
He  was  able  with  equal  success  to  deal  with  the 
maladies  of  the  soul.  How  exact  the  parallel  was 
may  be  learned  from  the  fact  that  to  the  Woman 
who  was  a  Sinner,  when  He  forgave  her  sins,  He 
said  the  very  same  as  He  used  to  say  to  those  cured 
of  bodily  infirmities :  “  Thy  faith  hath  made  thee 
whole.”  * 

In  Christ’s  school  of  faith  there  was  what  may 
be  called  an  upper  class.  Not  a  few,  in  the  Gospel 
history,  like  Jairus  and  the  Syrophcenician  Woman, 

und  gipfelt  in  Dank,  Freude  und  Friede.  Denn  vvenn  vvir 
diese  Thatsache  und  unsere  ganze  durch  diese  Thatsache 
gekennzeichnete  Lage  als  den  Ausdruck  dessen  verstehen, 
was  Gott  uns  sagen  will,  so  fiihlen  wir  uns  von  einer  Liebe 
umfangen,  die  uns  vollig  demiithigt  und  uns  wunderbar 
vergiebt  [erhebt?]” — From  an  article  on  “Andacht,5’  by  W, 
Herrmann,  in  Hauck’s  Reale ncy clop adie. 

*  'H  Tii(TTLS  crov  (reaconeu  ere. 


FAITH 


185 

came  to  Him  seeking  help  not  for  themselves,  but 
for  their  relatives  ;  and  it  was  given  in  answer  to 
their  prayers.  In  cases  of  bodily  illness  the  cure 
seems  sometimes  to  have  been  given  without  the 
co-operation  of  the  faith  of  the  patient.  In  spiritual 
healing  the  latter  was  naturally  essential ;  but  it 
might  be  awakened  by  the  antecedent  faith  of 
friends.  Of  this  there  is  a  remarkable  illustration 
in  the  case  of  the  man  brought  to  Jesus  by  four 
neighbours  and  let  down  through  the  roof.  “Jesus, 
seeing  their  faith,”  we  are  told,  “  said  to  the  sick 
of  the  palsy,  Son,  be  of  good  cheer ;  thy  sins  are 
forgiven  thee.”  What  the  four  bearers  had  in  view 
was  the  bodily  restoration  of  their  friend  ;  but  their 
faith,  in  combination  with  the  hallowed  presence 
into  which  they  had  brought  him,  awakened  faith 
in  the  paralytic  himself  not  only  for  the  bodily  cure, 
but  for  the  higher  blessing  as  well ;  whereupon 
Christ  bestowed  both.  This  is  a  marvellous  case  ; 
yet  it  has  its  analogies  in  Christian  ministries  in 
all  ages  which,  although  contemplating  bodily  effects 
in  the  first  place,  yet  may  awaken  interior  in¬ 
stincts  and  activities  by  which  the  soul  reaches  out 
to  the  apprehension  of  more  perfect  and  enduring 
benefits. 

This  reminds  us  that  there  was  a  still  more 
advanced  class  in  the  school  of  Christ,  composed  of 
those  who  were  privileged  to  work  miracles  in  His 
name.  These  signs  and  wonders  were  wrought  by 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


1 86 


faith,  and,  when  they  failed,  and  those  who  had  in 
vain  attempted  to  work  them  were  put  to  shame, 
as  in  the  case  of  the  demoniac  boy  at  the  foot  of 
the  Mount  of  Transfiguration,  the  failure  was  due 
to  unbelief.  But,  in  performing  such  acts,  the 
apostles  were  serving  their  apprenticeship  to  the 
still  higher  miracle  of  converting  the  world ;  and 
especially  they  were  learning  the  lesson  that  in  such 
work  nothing  except  faith  is  of  any  avail.  It  was 
to  this,  and  not  to  physical  marvels,  that  their 
Master  was  referring  when  He  affirmed  that,  if 
they  had  faith  as  a  grain  of  mustard -seed,  they 
could  remove  mountains.  The  obstacles  in  the 
way  of  the  conversion  of  the  world  were  great  as 
mountains,  but  faith  could  remove  them,  and  faith 
alone. 

There  is  something  bewildering  in  the  statement 
of  Jesus  that  effects  deserving  to  be  described  in 
such  terms  may  be  wrought  by  faith  like  a  grain  of 
mustard-seed.  This  is  a  clear  proof  that  the  virtue 
of  faith  consists  not  in  itself,  but  in  the  fact  that 
it  gives  God  His  opportunity :  it  is  simply  the 
opening  of  the  soul  to  admit  God,  that  He  may 
act ;  and  it  is  by  His  action  that  the  miracles  are 
performed. 

Now  we  may  be  able  to  answer  the  question  raised 
by  Harnack  as  to  whether  Christ  is  an  element  in 
His  own  Gospel — whether  He  challenged  faith  to- 


FAITH 


187 


wards  Himself.  In  the  first  place,  it  may  be  laid 
down  as  certain  that  He  sought  no  faith  for  Himself 
apart  from  His  Father.  Whenever  Christ  is  offered, 
it  is  the  Father  who  is  dealing  with  those  to  whom 
He  is  offered.  The  Father  is  constantly  repeating 
the  words  He  uttered  in  the  days  of  our  Lord’s  flesh  : 
“  This  is  My  beloved  Son,  in  whom  I  am  well 
pleased  ;  hear  ye  Him,”  thus  commending  His  Son 
and  pressing  Him  on  the  acceptance  of  sinners.  It 
is  with  the  Father  that  sinners  have  primarily  to  do ; 
and  it  is  He  who,  in  offering  salvation,  offers  it  in 
Christ.  This  was  clearly  indicated  by  Jesus  Himself 
when  He  said  :  “  He  that  receiveth  Me  receiveth 
Him  that  sent  Me.”  But  Jesus  also  offers  Himself 
as  Saviour  with  a  relative  independence ;  and  He 
takes  no  anxious  thought  to  remind  us  that  He 
is  not  acting  on  His  own  initiative.  Of  this  the  most 
critical  examples  are  found  in  those  cases  where  He 
claims  to  forgive  sins,  because  it  is  manifest  that  He 
who  can  forgive  sins  can  bestow  all  the  blessings  of 
salvation.  Now,  on  the  two  most  outstanding  occa¬ 
sions  when  He  expressly  forgave  sins — those  of  the 
Woman  that  was  a  Sinner  and  of  the  paralytic  borne 
of  four — He  was  directly  challenged  as  a  blasphemer, 
because  none  can  forgive  sins  but  God  only.  And 
what  did  He  reply  ?  Did  He  explain  that  He  was 
only  the  agent  of  Another?  This  is  the  explanation 
now  given  for  Him  by  those  who  allege  that  He  is 
not  the  subject  of  His  own  preaching ;  what  they 


1 88 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


say  is  that  He  was  only  emphasizing  the  forgiving 
nature  of  God  and,  as  one  intimate  with  His  mind, 
assuring  those  who  were  exercising  faith  that  God 
had  pardoned  them.  But  why  did  not  Jesus  state 
this  Himself?  A  single  word  to  this  effect  would 

have  put  Him  right.  Yet  He  did  not  utter  it,  pre- 

_  . . —  ..  ■  ■  -  -* 

ferring  to  die  as  a  blasphemer.  It  is  unnecessary  to 
draw  the  inference.* 

Thus  have  I  endeavoured  to  analyze  the  direct 
statements  in  which  our  Lord  makes  use  of  the 
words  “  faith  ”  and  “  believe  ”  ;  the  result  being,  it 
must  be  confessed,  less  definite  and  simple  than  that 
arising  from  a  study  of  the  use  of  the  same  words 
by  St.  Paul.  There  is  an  element  of  figurativeness, 
one  might  almost  say  of  exaggeration,  in  the  language 
of  Jesus  on  this  subject  which  baffles  us  ;  and  in 
His  words  faith  is  less  frequently  pointed  straight 
at  the  justification  of  sinners  than  its  connection 
with  this  experience  in  the  theology  of  the  Reforma¬ 
tion  might  lead  us  to  expect.f  But  there  is  a  class 

*  “  Man  reads  not  of  forgiveness  in  the  flowers  or  the  stars ; 
nor  does  he  hear  of  it  from  the  lips  of  men,  or  from  any 
creature.  And  yet  forgiveness  is  what  he  needs,  and  is  rest¬ 
lessly  in  search  of.  There  is  only  One  who  can  give  it ;  and 
He  says,  ‘  Come  unto  Me.’” — Colloquia  Peripatetica — one  of  the 
new  sayings  of  Rabbi  Duncan  in  the  sixth  edition  of  this 
precious  book. 

t  How  far  this  act  of  trust  involved  at  the  same  time,  con¬ 
sciously  or  unconsciously,  intellectual  belief  is  a  question  of 
great  importance,  but  it  does  not  concern  us  here.  “  Der 


FAITH 


189 


of  sayings  from  the  mouth  of  our  Lord,  in  which 
the  words  “  faith  ”  and  “  believe  ”  are  not  employed, 
yet  the  true  signification  and  force  of  faith  are 
perhaps  brought  out  more  clearly  and  impressively 
than  in  the  passages  where  these  words  do  occur 
Foremost  among  such  sayings  stands  the  great 
one  of  Matt.  xi.  28-30 :  “  Come  unto  Me,  all  ye 
that  labour  and  are  heavy-laden,  and  I  will  give  you 
rest.”  In  sketching  the  contemporaries  of  Jesus, 
we  have  had  occasion  to  refer  to  several  sorts  of 
which  the  population  of  Palestine  was  composed — 

Nachweis,”  says  Holtzmann  {N eutestamentliche  Theologie ,  i. 
372),  44  der  Continuitat  und  des  Einklangs  der  messianishen 
Predigt  mit  der  alttest.  Offenbarungsgeschichte  war  das  erste 
Erforderniss,  wenn  die  Einen  ihren  Glauben  an  Jesus  festhalten, 
die  Anderen  ihm  mit  voller  Uberzeugung  zufallen  sollten  ;  ihn 
zu  fiihren  ist  fur  die  Redner  in  Jerusalem  (Act.  vii.  2-53)  wie 
in  der  Heidenwelt  (xiii.  17-23)  erste  Pflicht  und  Ausgabe.  Alles 
kommt  darauf  an,  Jesu  personliche  Geschicke  nicht  bloss  als 
aus  dem  offenbarungsgeschichtlich  im  Voraus  festgestellten 
Rahmen  des  Messianismus  nicht  herausfallend,  sondern  als  ihn 
gegentheils  erst  recht  ausfullend,  das  in  demselben  bisher  bloss 
Angedeutete  kraftig  ausmalend,  die  leeren  Stellen  des  Bildes 
erganzend,  erscheinen  zu  lassen.  Wer  sich  von  dieser  prasta- 
bilirten  Harmonie  des  Alten  und  des  Neuen  uberzeugt  hatte, 
der  war  ein  4  Glaubiger  ’  nach  altestem  Stil ;  er  glaubte  dass 
dieser  ist  der  Christ  (ix.  22  ;  xvii.  3)  oder  4  der  Sohn  Gottes  ’ 
(ix.  20 ;  cf.  xviii.  5,  28),  nicht  bloss  in  dem  Sinne  einer  person- 
lichen  Entscheidung  fur  das  ihn  beriihrende  and  uberwaitigende 
Gottliche,  sondern  zugleich  auch  in  dem  Sinne  eines  Urtheils 
uber  Geschichtsgang  und  Weltzusammenhang.  So  war  ‘  Glau¬ 
ben  ’  und  4  Glauben  ’  von  Anfang  an  zweierlei,  der  Begriff  ein  von 
Haus  aus  amphibolischer,  entsprechend  der  Combination  eines 
historischen  und  eines  idealen  Factors  im  Glaubensgegenstand.” 


i  qo 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


the  publicans  and  sinners,  the  scribes  and  Pharisees, 
the  Sadducees  and  the  high-priests — but  we  must 
now  devote  more  ample  attention  to  one  class  on  the 
members  of  which  Jesus  primarily  had  His  eye  when 
He  gave  this  invitation  to  the  labouring  and  the 
heavy-laden.  In  the  beginning  of  the  Gospel  we 
obtain  glimpses  of  a  section  of  Jewish  society  very 
unlike  those  whom  Jesus  comprehensively  addressed 
as  His  “generation”  and  of  which  He  gave  such  a 
deplorable  account.  Sprinkled  sparsely  over  the 
land,  there  were  hidden  souls  in  whom  all  the  dis¬ 
cipline  of  the  Old  Testament,  including  the  com¬ 
mandments  of  the  Law,  the  enthusiasm  of  the 
Prophets,  the  preaching  of  the  Baptist,  which  had 
so  signally  failed  with  the  majority,  had  done  its 
work.  There  were  homes  in  which  the  fire  of  religion 
was  sedulously  trimmed,  though  it  had  gone  out  on 
the  public  altars.  Such  a  home  was  that  of  Jesus 
Himself.  Such  was  also  the  home  of  the  Baptist, 
of  whose  parents,  Zechariah  and  Elizabeth,  it  is 
said  that  “  they  were  both  righteous  before  God, 
walking  in  all  the  commandments  and  ordinances 
of  the  Lord  blameless.”  To  this  class  belonged 
Simeon  and  Anna,  of  the  former  of  whom  it  is  said 
that  he  was  “just  and  devout,  waiting  for  the  con¬ 
solation  of  Israel ;  and  the  Holy  Ghost  was  upon 
him,”  while  of  the  latter  it  is  remarked  that  “  she 
spake  of  Him  to  all  those  that  looked  for  redemption 
in  Jerusalem.”  The  latter  words  describe  the  whole 


FAITH 


191 


class,  although  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  they 
were  not  confined  to  the  capital  but  scattered  over 
all  parts  of  the  land.  They  might  be  few,  but  they 
were  infinitely  important ;  they  were  the  salt  of  the 
country  in  an  age  of  corruption.  They  knew  one 
another ;  they  spake  often  one  to  another,  sighing 
their  griefs  and  whispering  their  hopes  into  one 
another’s  ears.  Happily  there  have  been  preserved 
to  us  pretty  comprehensive  expressions  of  their 
sentiments  in  the  Hymn  of  Mary,  the  prophecies 
of  Elizabeth  and  her  husband,  and  the  address  of 
Simeon  ;  and  in  these  documents  we  can  see  what 
was  the  state  of  their  minds.  It  was  a  state  of 
trouble  :  they  were  filled  with  shame  at  the  degrada¬ 
tion  of  their  country  and  with  grief  at  the  evils  of 
the  age.  They  felt  like  people  sitting  in  darkness 
waiting  for  the  dayspring,  or  prisoners  sighing  in 
their  cells  for  liberty.  The  yoke  of  the  law  was  on 
their  consciences — that  yoke  of  which  St.  Peter, 
truly  interpreting  their  sentiments,  said  that  neither 
they  nor  their  fathers  were  able  to  bear  it— and 
the  blood  of  bulls  and  goats  failed  to  give  them 
peace.  These  were  the  tender  consciences  on  which 
the  scribes  in  the  synagogues  laid  heavy  burdens 
and  grievous  to  be  borne,  which,  although  they  tried 
loyally  to  be  obedient,  they  were  unable  to  carry. 
In  short,  they  were  labouring  and  heavy-laden  ;  and, 
I  think  we  may  say,  they  were  exactly  in  the  state 
of  mind  into  which  Jesus  attempted  to  bring  others 


192 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


by  preaching  His  doctrine  of  repentance — a  state  of 
tender  humility  and  expectant  receptivity. 

To  this  class,  then,  Jesus  addressed  Himself ;  and 
what  He  said  was,  “  Come  unto  Me.”  This  was 
precisely  equivalent  to  an  invitation  to  believe  on 
Himself  or  to  exercise  faith  ;  but  the  invitation  was 
couched  in  an  untechnical  and  singularly  attractive 
form.  It  made  faith  exceedingly  simple.  There 
He  was,  visible  in  the  flesh;  and  the .  labouring  and 
heavy-laden  were  invited  to  go  to  Him,  to  talk  with 
Him,  to  lay  Tare  to  His  sympathetic  ear  the  sorrow 
and  anxiety  with  which  they  were  vexed  and 
burdened.  Sometimes  He  varied  the  form  of  the 
invitation,  and,  instead  of  speaking  of  men  coming 
to  Him,  requested  them  to  “receive”  Him.  That  is 
to  say,  instead  of  representing  His  door  as  open  for 
them  to  come  to,  He  represented  Himself  as  going 
to  their  door  and  asking  to  be  admitted — an  attitude, 
if  possible,  even  more  simple  and  gracious. 

The  promise  with  which  this  great  saying  con¬ 
cludes,  “  And  I  will  give  you  rest,”  must  be  inter¬ 
preted  in  accordance  with  the  meaning  put  upon 
the  words  “  labour  and  are  heavy-laden  ”  ;  for  the 
obvious  intention  of  the  Speaker  is  that  those  who 
come  to  Him  are  to  rest  from  the  labours  and  bur¬ 
dens  indicated  in  this  phrase,  whatever  these  may 
be.  We  cannot  be  wrong  in  assuming  it  to  mean  at 
least  that  they  shall  rest  from  all  that  is  involved  in 
repentance;  and  so  the  statement  comes  uncommonly 


FAITH 


*93 


near  to  that  of  one  of  the  Beatitudes  ;  “  Blessed  are 
they  that  hunger  and  thirst  after  righteousness  ; 
for  they  shall  be  filled.” 

The  best  comment,  however,  is  in  Christ’s  own 
words  that  follow:  “Take  My  yoke  upon  you,  and 
learn  of  Me  ;  for  I  am  meek  and  lowly  in  heart  ; 
and  ye  shall  find  rest  for  your  souls  ;  for  My  yoke 
is  easy,  and  My  burden  is  light.”  The  yoke  was 
the  commonest  sight  in  Palestine  both  in  town  and 
country.  It  was  a  wooden  frame,  laid  on  the  necks 
of  two  oxen  and  binding  them  at  once  to  each  other 
and  to  the  burden,  with  which  it  was  connected  by 
means  of  a  pole  extending  back  between  the  pair. 
So  that  what  Jesus  promises  is  to  pull  in  the  same 
yoke  with  anyone  who  accepts  His  invitation.  They 
shall  travel  forward  side  by  side,  and  the  burden 
shall  be  His  burden.  Whatever  the  burden  be — 
guilt,  duty,  care,  death  itself — He  shares  it.  No 
wonder  He  adds  that  the  burden  is  light.  Jesus  was 
not  in  the  habit  of  speaking  of  the  yoke  He  imposed 
as  easy  or  the  burden  light,  as  we  shall  see  in  a 
subsequent  portion  of  His  doctrine  :  on  the  contrary, 
He  represented  His  yoke  as  painful  and  crushing. 
Both  representations  are  true,  but  this  one  contains 
the  profounder  truth.  St.  Augustine  has  a  beautiful 
illustration  of  the  paradox.  How,  asks  he,  can  a 
burden  be  light?  And  he  answers:  Look  at  the 
eagle !  what  mighty  pinions  has  nature  affixed  to 
his  shoulders  !  they  must  be  heavy  !  To  any  other 

13 


194 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


bearer  at  least  they  would  be  an  intolerable  obstacle 
and  embarrassment.  But,  fixed  where  they  have 
been  placed  by  nature,  they  raise  the  royal  bird  and 
carry  it  up  into  the  eye  of  the  sun.  And  so  does 
Christ’s  burden  ;  because  duty  becomes  nature  when 
it  is  inspired  by  love. 


THE  IMITATION  OF  CHRIST 


Matt.  iv.  19. 

v.  13-16,  43-48- 

viii.  22. 

ix.  9. 

x.  38. 

xi.  29. 
xvi.  24. 
xix.  21,  28. 


Mark  i.  17,  20. 
ii.  14. 
viii.  34. 

xiv.  28. 

xv.  41. 


Luke  v.  27. 
vi.  40. 
viii.  1-3. 
ix-  23,  57-62 
xiv.  25-35. 


V.  3-12. 

Mark  iii.  12. 

Luke  v.  14. 

vi.  1-18. 

v.  43- 

ix.  21,  48. 

ix.  30. 

vii.  36. 

x.  13,  21. 

x.  16. 

viii.  26,  30. 

xiv.  7-1 1. 

xi.  25,  29. 

ix-  30>33-37}50- 

xvii.  7- 11. 

xviii.  4,  22. 

x.  13-16,  42-45. 

xviii.  14,  16, 

xix.  14. 

xiv.  61. 

xxii.  25-27. 

xx.  25-28. 
xxiii.  8-12 

xv.  3-5- 

ft 


CHAPTER  IX. 

THE  IMITATION  OF  CHRIST 

IN  the  vocabulary  of  Jesus,  the  most  significant 
expression  for  faith  is  the  invitation,  “  Come 
unto  Me.”  To  this,  in  its  turn,  succeeds  the  equally 
characteristic  invitation,  “  Follow  Me,”  which  recurs 
with  great  frequency  in  the  records.  And  this  is 
the  third  stage  of  Christian  progress. 

When,  in  the  days  of  His  flesh,  our  Lord  said 
to  anyone,  “  Follow  Me,”  the  first  and  most  obvious 
meaning  of  the  invitation  was  a  very  concrete  one 
indeed.  He  was  an  itinerant  preacher,  moving 
from  town  to  town  and  from  province  to  province  ; 
and  it  was  a  call  to  accompany  Him  on  His 
journeys.  Thus,  St.  Matthew  quitted  the  receipt 
of  custom,  and  of  St.  John  and  St.  James  it  is 
related  that  they  “  left  the  ship  and  their  father 
and  followed  Him.”  St.  Peter,  a  married  man,  had 
to  leave  his  family  ;  and  how  much  this  meant  to 
him  may  be  inferred  from  his  own  blunt  words 
afterwards,  “  Master,  we  have  left  all  and  followed 
Thee  ;  what  shall  we  have  therefore  ?  ” 

In  reading  the  Gospels,  everyone  must  have  been 


197 


198 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


perplexed  as  to  the  actual  extent  of  such  a  call 
on  the  part  of  Jesus.  To  the  prosaic  mind 
difficulties  suggest  themselves  as  to  how  those 
were  to  find  support  who  literally  obeyed  the  call, 
and  as  to  what  was  to  become  of  their  families 
and  dependents  in  their  absence.  Was  the  abandon¬ 
ment  of  home  and  occupation  intended  to  be 
permanent  or  only  temporary?  In  certain  cases 
the  decision  must  surely  be  given  for  the  latter 
alternative.  The  women,  for  example,  who 
“followed”  Him  from  Galilee  cannot  have  been 
intended  to  abandon  their  homes  forever.  We 

hear  of  at  least  one  candidate  for  a  place  among 

% 

His  followers  to  whom  He  gave  orders  to  return 
at  once  to  his  friends  ;  yet  such  a  dismissal  must 
have  been  compatible  with  the  doing  of  all  that 
was  most  essential  in  following  Him.  It  is  question¬ 
able  how  far  even  the  Twelve  understood  at  first 
that  they  were  abandoning  their  secular  callings 
forever ;  and  there  are  indications  that,  after  the 
death  of  their  Master,  the  thought  occurred  to 
them  that  the  time  had  come  for  returning  to 
their  original  employments. 

Perhaps,  indeed,  the  cast-iron  system  of  modern 
society  in  the  West,  in  which  everyone  is  fixed 
down  in  a  position  involving  incessant  duties,  the 
punctual  fulfilment  of  which  is  the  prime  mark 
of  character,  may  cause  the  situation  of  those 
called  by  Jesus  to  appear  to  us  more  formidable 


THE  IMITATION  OF  CHRIST 


199 


than  it  actually  was.  The  elementary  necessaries 
of  life,  such  as  food,  clothing  and  shelter,  demand 
far  more  unremitting  attention  in  a  climate  like 
ours  than  they  did  in  the  East,  with  its  genial 
atmosphere  and  simple  diet.  In  Palestine,  even 
before  the  time  of  Christ,  it  seems  to  have  been 
no  uncommon  thing  for  the  disciples  of  a  rabbi 
to  follow  him  wherever  he  went ;  and  I  have 
been  told  by  a  living  Jew  that,  if  at  the  present 
day  there  were  to  appear  anywhere  in  the  Jewish 
world  a  teacher  of  exceptional  genius  and  sanctity, 
pil  grimages,  to  see  and  hear  him,  would  be  made 
from  great  distances  by  the  devout,  some  of  whom 
might  be  found  staying  for  a  prolonged  period  in 
his  vicinity,  for  the  purpose  of  picking  up  the 
crumbs  of  wisdom.  Since  the  rise  of  monasticism 
in  the  fourth  century  it  has  been  demonstrated  on 
the  great  scale,  in  the  history  of  both  Eastern 
and  Western  Christendom,  how  ample  a  response 
may  be  given  to  a  call  to  abandon  the  world  with 
all  its  pursuits  and  prizes.  Indeed,  in  certain 
states  of  mind  there  seems  to  be  an  attraction  in 
renunciation,  and  motives  of  many  kinds  may 
constrain  thereto.  But  the  question  difficult  to 
decide  is,  how  far  Jesus  aimed  at  this.  Undoubtedly 
there  were  some  whom  He  meant  to  employ  as 
agents  of  His  kingdom  to  such  an  extent  that 
they  could  do  nothing  else,  their  time  and  strength 
being  so  covenanted  to  His  peculiar  mission  that 


200 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


they  could  not  have  followed  secular  callings  ;  but 
there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  these  were  the 
only  hearers  to  whom  He  addressed  the  call, 
“  Follow  Me.”  The  majority  even  of  those  who 
obeyed  must  ultimately  have  returned  to  the  usual 
occupations  of  human  beings.  Yet  it  was  probably 
involved  that,  for  a  time  at  least,  they  should 
remain  in  close  attendance  on  His  person. 

The  purpose  for  which  He  desired  to  have  near 
Him  those  whom  He  invited  to  follow  Him  was  that 
they  might  hear  His  preaching  and  learn  His  doctrine. 
Jesus  had  in  His  own  mind  a  system  of  truth— the 
final  and  perfect  revelation  of  God  to  the  world — 
and  He  kept  His  followers  long  enough  about  Him 
to  stamp  its  leading  principles  on  their  minds.  On 
scarcely  any  topic  did  he  speak  more  copiously  than 
on  the  inestimable  advantage  of  hearing  the  truth 
from  His  lips.  He  declared  that  Mary,  in  sitting 
at  His  feet  for  this  purpose,  was  doing  the  one 
thing  needful  ;  and,  in  concluding  the  summary  of 
His  doctrine  delivered  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount, 
He  solemnly  averred  that  what  He  had  spoken  was 
the  foundation  on  which  the  life  of  every  hearer 
must  be  built,  whereas  the  hearer  who  neglected 
what  he  had  listened  to  must  come  to  utter  ruin, 
like  a  house  on  the  sand  swept  away  by  a  flood. 
Jesus  was  keenly  aware  of  the  advantages,  with 
which  every  teacher  is  familiar,  of  continuous  in¬ 
struction.  As  a  child  sent  to  school  only  at  irregular 


THE  IMITATION  OF  CHRIST 


201 


intervals  will  never  have  more  than  a  smattering  of 
education,  and  as  anyone  who  has  only  a  smattering 
of  any  subject,  such  as  a  foreign  language,  very 
soon,  without  practice,  loses  it  altogether,  so  Jesus 
was  acutely  conscious  that  the  knowledge  which  He 
had  to  communicate  could  only  be  acquired  with 
time,  patience  and  application,  each  acquisition  being 
made  the  stepping-stone  for  another  on  a  higher 
level ;  and,  therefore,  He  coveted  not  only  hearers, 
but  “  disciples  ” — the  first  name  which  His  followers 
bore.  This  was  precisely  what  was  in  His  mind 
when  He  said,  “  Take  heed  how  ye  hear  ;  for  who¬ 
soever  hath,  to  him  shall  be  given,  and,  whosoever 
hath  not,  from  him  shall  be  taken  away  even  that 
which  he  seemeth  to  have.”  This  saying  is  based 
on  an  observation  of  business-life  which  it  may 
surprise  us  to  find  Him  making,  but  which  is  familiar 
to  all  who  have  any  acquaintance  with  this  depart¬ 
ment  of  things,  and  it  graphically  illustrates  His 
point.  The  man  who  has  capital  can  buy  on  favour¬ 
able  terms  and  can  wait  for  a  favourable  market 
in  which  to  sell ;  so  that  he  who  has  much  is  in 
the  way  to  have  more.  The  man,  on  the  contrary, 
without  capital  can  make  no  terms  with  the  buyer 
but  must  get  quit  of  his  property  at  once,  what¬ 
ever  it  may  bring  ;  if  he  incur  a  bad  debt,  or  if 
any  other  mischance  befall  him — and  such  accidents 
abound  in  every  kind  of  business — he  is  blown  over, 
and  loses  the  little  he  has.  Some  striking  case  of 


202 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


this  sort,  with  which  perhaps  He  made  acquaintance 
during  His  own  business-life  at  Nazareth,  must  have 
made  a  deep  impression  on  the  mind  of  Jesus,  for 
He  employs  the  illustration  more  than  once  and 
for  more  than  one  purpose  ;  but  here,  what  He  is 
insisting  on  is  its  application  to  the  hearing  of  the 
truth,  His  meaning  being  this  :  he  who  knows  but 
little  of  divine  truth  is  very  apt  to  lose  it  all  ;  but 
he  who  advances  far  into  this  region  sees  new 
avenues  opening  before  him  on  every  hand,  and, 
the  more  he  knows,  the  keener  grows  his  thirst  for 
knowledge. 

Not  only  did  those  who  followed  Jesus  hear  His 
teaching  in  its  native  order  and  connection,  but  they 
enjoyed  the  inestimable  privilege  of  questioning  Him 
in  secret  about  anything  they  had  not  been  able  to 
understand  in  His  public  utterances.  “When  Jesus 
was  alone,”  says  St.  Mark,  “  He  expounded  all  things 
to  His  disciples.”  Of  these  private  questionings  and 
explanations  some  specimens  have  been  preserved 
in  the  Gospels,  and  they  show  at  a  glance  how 
much  the  disciples  must  have  profited  by  these 
opportunities. 

There  is  another  in  the  New  Testament  besides 
Jesus  who  says  to  others,  “Follow  me.”*  This  is 
St.  Paul.  We  should  hardly  have  expected  any  mere 
man  to  be  so  bold ;  only,  when  he  says,  “  Be  ye 


*  2  Tim.  iii.  io;  cf.  I  Tim.  iv.  12. 


THE  IMITATION  OF  CHRIST 


203 


followers  of  me,”  he  is  careful  to  add,  “  As  I  also 
am  of  Christ  ” ;  *  so  that,  after  all,  here  also  it  is 
the  following  of  Christ  which  is  involved.  When, 
however,  St.  Paul  said  this,  it  is  evident  he  was  not 
inviting  others  to  come  after  him  in  the  sense  of 
joining  his  company  and  performing  along  with  him 
his  missionary  journeys,  but  to  imitate  him  in  his 
“  doctrine,  manner  of  life,  purpose,  faith,  longsuffering^ 
charity,  patience.”  This  supplies  us  with  another 
interpretation  of  the  language  of  St.  Paul’s  Master,! 
when  He  says,  “  Follow  Me  ”  :  He  means,  “  Imitate 
Me.” 

It  is,  indeed,  not  a  little  curious  that  St.  Paul,  in 
challenging  the  imitation  of  his  own  example,  employs 
language  more  strong  and  direct  than  Jesus  does  in 
the  same  circumstances. !  Jesus  rather  invites  His 
hearers  in  unmistakeable  terms  to  be  imitators  of  God, 
that  they  may  thereby  prove  themselves  to  be  His 
genuine  children,  as  when  He  says,  in  the  Sermon  on 
the  Mount,  “  But  I  say  unto  you,  love  your  enemies, 
bless  them  that  curse  you,  do  good  to  them  that  hate 

*  1  Cor.  xi.  1. 

t  Huther,  in  Meyer’s  Commentary,  is  of  opinion  that  in  this 
verse  irap^KokovOrjaas  does  not  mean  exactly  “imitate’’;  but 
between  this  and  the  meaning  assigned  by  him  there  is  hardly 
a  shade  of  difference. 

}  Mineral  pov  yiveaOe  in  i  Cor.  iv.  16,  and  xi.  1 — in  Revised 
Version  translated  “imitators.'’  In  1  Thess.  i.  6  (same  verb), 
“Ye  became  imitators  of  us  and  of  the  Lord,”  and  ii.  14,  “Ye 
became  imitators  of  the  churches  of  God.”  In  Phil.  iii.  17  we 
have  the  variation  (vppipr]Tai  puv  yiveade. 


204 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


you,  and  pray  for  them  which  despitefully  use  you  and 
persecute  you  ;  that  ye  may  be  the  children  of  your 
Father  which  is  in  heaven;  for  He  maketh  His  sun 
to  rise  on  the  evil  and  the  good,  and  sendeth  rain 
on  the  just  and  on  the  unjust  ”  or,  a  little  farther  on, 
utters  the  marvellous  injunction,  “Be  ye,  therefore, 
perfect,  even  as  your  Father  which  is  in  heaven 
is  perfect”  But,  even  if  the  idea  of  imitation  were 
not  involved  linguistically  in  that  of  following,  we 
might  well  look  upon  it  as  included,  every  time  our 
Lord  uttered  this  call,  on  account  of  the  nature  of  the 
case  ;  for  those  who  responded  to  His  call,  if  they 
did  so  to  any  extent  in  the  spirit  of  sympathy  and 
comradeship  in  which  they  had  been  invited,  must 
have  been  unawares  involved  in  imitation.  Not  only 
had  they  His  perfection  before  their  eyes,  as  one  may 
have  a  model  which  is  being  copied,  but  from  day 
to  day  there  were  being  wafted  towards  them  those 
subtler  influences  which  flow  from  personality,  and 
their  susceptibility  to  these  was  growing  from  month 
to  month  by  the  growth  of  their  attachment  to  Him¬ 
self.  If  it  is  a  commonplace  of  ethical  doctrine  that 
character  is  formed  by  friendship,  and  if  most  of  those 
who  have  attained  to  anything  remarkable  in  this 
direction  have  traced  their  excellence  to  association 
with  the  good  and  wise,  it  was  inevitable  that  those 
who  associated  with  Jesus  as  long  and  closely  as 
did  the  Twelve  should  catch  something  of  His  spirit 
and  be  touched  with  His  greatness,  unless  there  was 


THE  IMITATION  OF  CHRIST 


205 


some  impenetrable  obstacle,  as  there  was  in  the 
case  of  Judas.  In  point  of  fact,  this  unique  oppor¬ 
tunity  did  thus  benefit  the  Twelve  ;  for,  while  they 
were  born  in  an  obscurity  from  which  there  is  no 
reason  for  thinking  any  of  them  would  ever,  but 
for  Him,  have  emerged,  they  grew,  in  association 
with  their  Master,  to  such  moral  stature  and  spiritual 
power  that  what  they  became  is  now  one  of  the 
most  eloquent  of  all  testimonies  to  the  character  of 
Christ. 

What  the  character  of  Jesus  was  many  have 
attempted  to  tell  ;  and  such  attempts  will  be  multi¬ 
plied  in  the  future,  as  they  ought  to  be;  because  none 
of  them  are  either  altogether  successful  or  altogether 
in  vain,  and  every  increase  of  experience  helps  to 
open  the  mystery.  This  is  a  topic  with  which 
American  theology  has  specially  concerned  itself, 
and  many  striking  portraitures  of  the  Divine  Man 
are  to  be  reckoned  among  its  productions.  Of  these 
the  very  latest  speaks  of  His  strength,  His  sincerity, 
His  reasonableness,  His  poise,  His  originality,  His 
narrowness,  His  breadth,  His  trust,  His  brotherliness, 
His  optimism,  His  chivalry,  His  firmness,  His 
generosity,  His  candour,  His  enthusiasm,  His  glad¬ 
ness,  His  humility,  His  patience,  His  courage,  His 
indignation,  His  reverence,  His  holiness,  His  greatness, 
in  successive  chapters.*  In  an  effort  of  this  kind 


*  Jefferson,  The  Character  of  Jesus. 


206 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


justly  famous,*  the  combination  in  His  character  of 
opposite  virtues — such  as  those  of  the  masculine  with 
those  of  the  feminine  type,  habits  of  activity  with 
habits  of  contemplation,  sympathy  with  God  with 
sympathy  with  man — is  employed  with  the  happiest 
result.  It  would  be  possible  to  take  a  single  quality 
of  outstanding  prominence  in  His  character,  such  as 
love,  and  group  round  it  all  the  rest  or  develop  them 
out  of  it ;  or  one  of  His  haunting  ideas,  such  as  the 
will  of  God,  might  be  taken  as  the  key.  In  spite  of 
the  narrow  limits  of  the  Gospels,  so  much  is  crowded 
into  their  narratives  that  it  is  possible  to  follow  Jesus 
through  nearly  every  department  of  human  existence 
and  observe  His  demeanour  and  bearing  in  char¬ 
acteristic  experiences,  and  in  this  way  there  may  be 
constructed  an  image  of  Christ  in  the  home,  in  the 
State,  in  the  Church,  in  friendship,  in  society,  as  a 
man  of  prayer,  as  a  student  of  Scripture,  as  a  worker, 
as  a  sufferer,  as  a  philanthropist,  as  a  winner  of  souls, 
as  a  preacher,  as  a  teacher,  as  a  controversialist,  as  a 
man  of  feeling,  as  an  influence. 

But  our  present  design  leads  us  to  look  for  an 
indication  in  His  own  words  ;  and  this  can  be  found 
in  the  Beatitudes.  In  an  earlier  part  of  this  book 
there  has  been  occasion  to  show  that  these  remarkable 
statements  are  not  primarily  intended  to  enumerate 
the  virtues  of  the  character  demanded  or  created  by 
Christ,  but  rather  to  exhibit  the  blessings  and  rewards 


*  In  Bushnell  s  Nature  and  the  Supernatural. 


THE  IMITATION  OF  CHRIST 


207 


which  Christianity  brings  to  those  who  accept  it,  and 
that,  therefore,  the  final  part  of  every  beatitude  is 
the  most  essential.  Nevertheless,  the  Beatitudes  do 
give  prominence  to  certain  elements  of  character, 
which  might  be  capable  of  being  combined  into  a 
complete  picture.  These  Jesus  demanded  in  others  ; 
but  He  exemplified  them  in  Himself.  In  the  Beati¬ 
tudes  He  praises  the  aspirations  of  others,  but  He 
at  the  same  time  describes  His  own  attainments  ; 
He  is  the  character  which  He  describes.  How  fully, 
for  example,  to  Him  must  have  come  the  blessedness 
of  the  “  peacemakers  ”  ;  the  very  aim  of  His  life 
being  to  make  peace  between  God  and  man,  and 
between  man  and  man.  When  He  says,  “  Blessed 
are  the  merciful,”  we  are  reminded  of  such  a  char¬ 
acteristic  notice  as  that  which  says  that  “  He  had 
compassion  on  the  multitude,  because  they  were 
hungry  and  were  scattered  like  sheep  without  a 
shepherd,”  or  of  His  prayer  on  the  cross,  “Father, 
forgive  them,  for  they  know  not  what  they  do,”  or  of 
the  gracious  word  which  He  s’poke  at  the  same  time 
to  the  penitent  thief.  It  requires  no  demonstration 
that  the  blessedness  of  “  the  pure  in  heart  ”  must 
have  been  His  portion  beyond  that  of  any  other  of 
the  children  of  men.  None  ever  so  passionately  as 
He  “  hungered  and  thirsted  after  righteousness,”  the 
earliest  recorded  word  of  His  maturity  being,  “  Suffer 
it  to  be  so  now,  for  thus  it  becometh  us  to  fulfil  all 
righteousness,”  and  the  same  aspiration  after  the 


208 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


approving  verdict  of  God  accompanying  Him  to  the 
end,  as  we  easily  assure  ourselves  by  listening  to  His 
prayer  in  Gethsemane.  “  Blessed  are  they  that 
mourn  ”  was  realised  in  the  Man  of  Sorrows,  who, 
as  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  reflects, 
was  made  perfect  through  sufferings.  If  it  is  a  quality 
of  character  which  is  expressed  in  the  last  of  the 
Beatitudes,  “  Blessed  are  ye  when  men  shall  revile 
you  and  persecute  you,  and  shall  say  all  manner  of 
evil  against  you  falsely,”  it  is  needless  to  prove  that 
it  belonged  in  unparalleled  measure  to  Him. 

There  is  still,  however,  something  lacking  to  bind 
into  one  these  scattered  features  of  character  ;  and 
there  was  one  occasion  when  Jesus  called  upon  men 
more  directly  to  imitate  His  example  than  when  He 
merely  said  “Follow  Me”;  and  then  He  singled  out 
a  quality  as  peculiarly  His  own.  This  was  when  He 
said,  “  Learn  of  Me,  for  I  am  meek  and  lowly  in 
heart.” 

The  quality  designated  by  these  adjectives  was 
one  familiar  to  those  who  first  heard  the  words 
of  Jesus  ;  for  it  is  often  designated  by  the  same 
terms,  and  by  other  kindred  ones,  in  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment,  where  it  is  the  special  character  of  the  people 
of  Jehovah,  who  promises  all  blessings  to  those  who 
are  distinguished  by  it.  It  was  the  constant  aspira¬ 
tion  of  the  circle  in  which  Jesus  was  brought  up, 
as  can  be  seen  in  the  prevalence  of  the  same  language 
in  the  songs  with  which  the  advent  of  the  Messiah 


THE  IMITATION  OF  CHRIST 


209 


was  greeted  by  such  worthies  as  Simeon  and  Elizabeth. 
Before  attributing  it  to  Himself,  Jesus  demanded  it 
from  others,  if  they  wished  to  be  His  disciples  ;  for 
not  only  is  the  third  beatitude,  “  Blessed  are  the 
meek,”  but  the  very  first,  “  Blessed  are  the  poor  in 
spirit,”  might,  as  far  as  the  meaning  is  concerned, 
have  been,  “  Blessed  are  the  meek  and  lowly  in 
heart.”  Indeed,  the  third  beatitude  is  a  translation 
from  Psalm  xxxvii.,  and  the  Hebrew  word  there 
rendered  “  meek  ”  is  not  infrequently  rendered 
“  poor  ”  in  other  Old  Testament  passages.* 

Here,  then,  we  apparently  have  not  only  a  favourite 
idea  of  Jesus,  but  the  most  outstanding  feature  of  His 
character,  to  which  those  must  specially  direct  their 
attention  who  desire  to  copy  His  example.  It  be¬ 
tokens  both  a  certain  attitude  towards  God  and  a 
certain  behaviour  towards  man.  Towards  God  it  is 
an  attitude  of  perfect  submission  to  His  will,  however 
hard  it  be  to  bear,  as  well  as  perfect  loyalty  to  His 
commands,  however  difficult  these  may  be  to  execute  ; 
and  towards  man  it  is  patience  with  his  errors,  as  well 
as  helpfulness  in  every  time  of  need.  All  the 
qualities  placed  in  the  forefront  of  the  Beatitudes 
are  but  different  forms  of  a  receptiveness  which  lays 
the  heart  open  before  God,  empty,  that  He  may  fill 
it  with  His  forgiveness,  grace  and  strength.  Divine 
forgiveness,  however,  begets  a  disposition  to  forgive, 

*  See  the  excellent  articles  on  7 rpavs  and  raneivos  in  Cremers 

Dictionary  of  Biblical  Theology. 


14 


210 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


and,  where  the  divine  fulness  has  been  received,  there 
is  a  tendency  to  pour  forth  on  others  the  overflow  of 
this  wealth. 

As  this  was  the  secret  of  Jesus’  own  character,  it  is 
no  wonder  that  He  recommended  it  on  all  occasions 
to  others.  Of  pride  in  all  its  forms  He  was  a 
determined  enemy  ;  for  He  detected  in  it  not  only 
selfishness  and  lovelessness  towards  man,  but  a 
setting-up  of  man  against  God.  He  scourged  it,  as 
we  have  seen,  in  the  conduct  of  the  Pharisees.  He 
had  to  rebuke  it,  too,  in  His  own  disciples,  who,  to 
the  very  last,  were  contending  among  themselves 
which  of  them  should  be  the  greatest.  He  seems  to 
have  had  the  maxim  often  in  His  mouth,  that  “  he 
that  exalteth  himself  shall  be  abased,  but  he  that 
humbleth  himself  shall  be  exalted.” 

In  all  ages,  when  men  have  contrasted  the  spirit 
of  Christ  with  the  spirit  of  the  world  and  the 
estimates  of  philosophy  with  those  of  Christianity,  it 
has  been  recognised  that  there  is  no  more  dis¬ 
tinguishing  mark  of  Christian  Ethics  than  this 
preference  for  the  character  which  can  be  described 
as  “  meek  and  lowly.”  As  if  to  emphasize  the 
contrast  beforehand,  Aristotle  places,  as  the  crown 
of  the  human  character  which  his  philosophy  was 
intended  to  form,  two  qualities — magnificence  and 
highmindedness.  The  former  was  lavish  expenditure 
on  worthy  objects.  It  never  entered  the  mind  of  the 
heathen  thinker  that  the  highest  virtue  could  be 


THE  IMITATION  OF  CHRIST 


21 1 


attainable  by  a  poor  man,  not  to  speak  of  a  slave  ; 
but  he  encouraged  the  rich  to  give  liberally  for  public 
objects  and  especially  for  adorning  the  worship  of 
the  gods.  The  other  chief  virtue — highmindedness — 
is  the  state  of  mind  of  one  who  both  deserves  and 
claims  the  highest  things  ;  and,  as  there  is  nothing 
higher  than  honour,  this  is  especially  the  aim  of  his 
ambition.  The  Aristotelian  highmindedness  is  the 
self-consciousness  of  a  great  man,  who  walks  among 
his  fellow-creatures  with  nonchalance,  not  concerning 
himself  about  their  observation  or  criticism,  because 
he  is  aware  of  his  own  merit.  This  strain  has  been 
taken  up  in  modern  times  by  the  German  philosopher 
Nietzsche,  who  contrasts  what  he  calls  the  morality 
of  gentlemen  with  the  morality  of  slaves,  identifying 
the  latter  with  Christianity*  But  Thomas  Aquinas 
was  wise  enough  to  see  that  both  the  supreme 
virtues  of  the  ancient  philosopher  are  capable  of 
incorporation  in  the  Christian  system,  though  they 


*  Nietzsche  is  not  without  feeling  for  some  of  the  ethical 
secrets  of  Jesus — for  example,  “I  am  come  that  they  might  have 
life,  and  that  they  might  have  it  more  abundantly,”  and,  “  It  is 
more  blessed  to  give  than  to  receive  ” — and  these  impart  to  his 
works  whatever  of  ideality  they  possess  ;  but  he  sinks  down 
with  fatal  ease  and  frequency  into  mere  paradox  and  violence. 
That  which  it  is  difficult  for  those  living  outside  of  Germany 
to  understand  is  not  his  popularity  with  the  masses,  but  the 
amount  of  attention  paid  to  him  by  such  scholars  as  Eucken 
and  Haring;  for  his  habit  of  thinking  by  the  mere  process  of 
starting  objections  of  all  kinds  to  every  accepted  proposition 
is  surely  puerile  and  soon  becomes  wearisome. 


212 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


may  hold  in  it  but  a  subordinate  place.  In  the 
character  and  career  of  Jesus  Himself,  while  the 
qualities  that  are  “  meek  and  lowly  ”  were  prominent, 
they  had  behind  them  qualities  to  which  the  very 
names  of  Aristotle’s  principal  virtues  might  be 
applied ;  and  this  union  is  an  essential  feature  of 
His  whole  history.  For  our  sakes  He  became  poor, 
but  “  He  was  rich  ”  ;  He  emptied  Himself,  but  of 
what  a  fulness  !  His  is  a  “glorious  infamy”!  The 
Byzantine  conception  of  the  “  meek  and  lowly  ” 
Saviour,  in  its  abjectness  and  hideousness,  misses  this 
side  of  the  image  and  thereby  becomes  so  untrue  that 
even  a  protest  as  strong  as  Nietzsche’s  may  have 
a  relative  justification. 

In  Christians,  according  to  the  directions  of  Jesus, 
there  ought  to  be  a  consciousness  having  not  a  little 
in  common  with  the  highmindedness  and  magnificence 
of  the  ancient  thinker.  They  are  the  salt  of  the 
earth  and  the  light  of  the  world  ;  they  are  sons  and 
daughters  of  the  Lord  Almighty  ;  they  carry  on  their 
hearts  the  destiny  of  their  fellow-creatures  and  strive 
to  bring  them  up  to  the  level  of  their  own  blessed¬ 
ness.  In  actual  fact  many  of  the  followers  of  Christ 
have,  in  every  generation,  risen  to  this  level ;  and 
some  of  the  poorest  and  least  considerable  of  them, 
as  far  as  this  world’s  means  are  concerned,  have  been 
invested  with  a  dignity  which  has  been  sacerdotal 
and  has  extorted  the  involuntary  homage  of  the 
world  ;  for  the  restriction  of  the  highest  virtue  to  a 


THE  IMITATION  OF  CHRIST 


213 


single  class,  and  that  the  smallest,  can  have  no  force 
in  the  Christian  fellowship. 

Thus  are  there  two  opposite  poles  of  Christian 
character — meekness  and  self-consciousness,  lowli¬ 
ness  and  prodigality — and  the  link  which  binds  them 
is  Service — a  watchword  also  prominent  in  the  voca¬ 
bulary  of  Jesus.  The  position  of  a  servant  is  lowly, 
and  his  heart  meek ;  for  he  looks  up  to  those  above 
him,  and  his  excellence  consists  in  remembering  their 
interests  and  forgetting  his  own.  Yet,  on  the  other 
hand,  a  servant  must  have  resources  to  be  of  value, 
and,  the  finer  in  quality  and  the  ampler  in  quantity 
the  benefits  anyone  is  able  to  confer,  the  more  is 
service  redeemed  from  drudgery  and  raised  to  blessed¬ 
ness  ;  for  “  it  is  more  blessed  to  give  than  to  receive.” 
Therefore,  Jesus  advised  those  who  heard  Him  to 
seek  their  satisfaction,  not  where  the  world  seeks 
it,  in  being  served,  but  in  serving :  “  Whosoever  will 
be  chief  among  you,  let  him  be  your  servant.”  It 
was  for  this  reason  that  He  commended  children  to 
their  imitation,  rebuking  the  rivalries  of  the  Twelve 
by  taking  a  little  child  and  setting  him  in  the  midst 
of  them.  But  His  own  example  was  constantly 
before  their  eyes  :  “  I  am  among  you  as  one  that 
serveth.”  Such,  He  was  conscious,  had  been  His 
unvarying  attitude  all  the  time  they  had  companied 
with  Him,  and  such  it  was  to  be  to  the  end,  only 
with  the  meekness  and  lowliness  always  deepening 
and  the  benefits  thereby  accumulated  on  their  heads 


214 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


increasing  in  value  ;  “  for  the  Son  of  Man  is  come, 
not  to  be  ministered  unto,  but  to  minister,  and  to 
give  His  life  a  ransom  for  many.” 

The  ethical  qualities  which  we  abstract  from  the 
life  of  Jesus  and  attempt  to  shape  into  a  consistent 
image  of  human  goodness  are  apt  to  stiffen  in  our 
hands  into  mere  abstractions,  with  no  personality 
behind  them  ;  and  we  sigh  for  those  three  splendid 
years  when  the  Twelve  actually  walked  the  earth 
in  company  with  Him  who  was  all  these  forms  of 
excellence  in  living  flesh  and  blood.  But  the  man¬ 
hood  of  Jesus  still  exists  and  is,  in  essence,  not 
different  from  what  it  was  when  it  pervaded  the 
fields  of  Galilee  and  moved  in  the  streets  of  Jerusalem; 
and  the  spiritual  presence,  which  is  with  us  always 
and  everywhere,  according  to  His  promise,  is  identified 
both  with  the  glorified  manhood  now  at  God’s  right 
hand  and  with  the  bygone  earthly  life,  the  incidents 
of  which  have  been  preserved  to  us  in  the  Gospels  ; 
so  that  a  communion  with  Christ,  wonderfully  real 
and  wonderfully  similar  to  that  enjoyed  by  the 
Twelve,  is  still  accessible  to  those  who  covet  it. 
There  are  men  and  women  now  breathing  above 
ground  who  are  more  intimately  acquainted  with 
Jesus  Christ  than  with  any  other  friend,  and  these 
cannot  but  exhibit  the  influence  of  His  character  on 
their  own. 


THE  CROSS  AND  OFFENCES 


Matt.  v.  10-12,  44. 

viii.  20. 

x.  16-25,  32, 

3539- 

xi.  29,  30. 
xiii,  21. 
xvi.  24. 

xix.  29. 

xx.  22,  23. 

xxi.  28-46. 
xxiv.  9. 

Matt.  v.  29,  30. 
xi.  6. 

xiii.  21,  41. 

xvi.  23. 

xvii.  27. 
xviii. 
xxiv.  10. 
xxvi.  31. 


Mark  iv.  i7- 

viii.  3L  34>  3§- 

ix.  12,  13,  31. 

x.  21,  28-31, 

33,  34- 

xiii.  9,  12,  13. 
xv.  34. 


Mark  iv.  17. 
vi.  3. 
ix.  33*50. 

xiii.  1-23. 

xiv.  27,  38. 


Luke  vi.  22,  23. 

ix.  22-27,  31, 
44,  57-62. 

xii.  4,  II,  12. 

xiii.  24. 

xiv.  25-35. 
xvii.  25. 

xxi.  12,  16-19. 
xxiv.  17,  26. 


Luke  vii.  23. 
viii.  13. 
xvii.  1-4. 


CHAPTER  X. 


THE  CROSS  AND  OFFENCES 
T  present  we  are  engaged  in  ascertaining  the 


ii  mind  of  our  Lord  as  to  the  path  which  leads 
from  unrighteousness  to  righteousness,  and  we  have 
found  the  ascent  thus  far  to  consist  of  three  steps : 
the  first  repentance  ;  the  second  best  expressed  in  His 
characteristic  phrase  “  Come  unto  Me  ”  ;  and  the  third 
best  expressed  in  the  equally  characteristic  word, 
“  Follow  Me.”  But  this  third  step  is  almost  inva¬ 
riably  associated  in  our  Lord’s  teaching  with  a  refer¬ 
ence  to  the  Cross ;  and  with  this  conception  we  must 
now  occupy  ourselves. 

In  evangelical  preaching  it  is  common  to  beseech 
sinners  to  be  reconciled  to  God  ;  and  for  doing  so 
with  overflowing  affection  and  urgency  there  is  high 
authority.  But  it  is  not  impossible  to  carry  this  to 
excess,  and  to  plead  and  press  to  a  degree  unworthy 
of  the  dignity  of  the  Gospel.  The  Saviour  Himself 
did  not  press  any  to  follow  Him  unconditionally. 
On  the  contrary,  He  held  some  at  arm’s  length  ;  and 
some  who  pressed  their  fellowship  upon  Him  He 
sent  about  their  business.  To  one  enthusiast  He 


217 


2l8 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


said,  “  Foxes  have  holes,  and  the  birds  of  the  air  have 
nests,  but  the  Son  of  Man  hath  not  where  to  lay  His 
head.”  To  a  lukewarm  heart,  who  asked,  before 
following  Him,  to  be  allowed  to  go  and  say  farewell 
to  his  friends,  He  answered,  “  No  man,  having  put 
his  hand  to  the  plough  and  looking  back,  is  fit  for 
the  kingdom  of  heaven.”  But  the  harshest  case  of 
this  kind  was  that  of  one  who  asked  to  be  permitted 
first  to  go  and  bury  his  father;  to  whom  Jesus  made 
reply,  “Let  the  dead  bury  their  dead.”  The  sug¬ 
gestion  has  been  made  that  what  was  asked  in  this 
case  was  not  time  to  go  and  bury  a  father  already 
dead — which  would  only  have  occupied  a  few  hours — 
but  permission  to  wait  till  the  father  died  and  was 
buried.  This  would  have  been  practically  putting 
off  Christ  till  the  Greek  Kalends.  And,  if  the  inter¬ 
pretation  could  be  depended  upon,  it  would  certainly 
take  off  the  edge  of  Christ’s  rebuke.  The  more 
obvious  sense  of  the  words  is,  however,  in  all  proba¬ 
bility  the  correct  one  ;  and  the  explanation  of  its 
harshness  will  be  found  only  when  we  have  settled 
upon  an  explanation  of  a  tendency  to  an  extreme 
use  of  hyperbole  in  which  He  frequently  indulged. 

He  did  not,  then,  wish  to  be  followed  merely 
because  of  an  impulse  of  enthusiasm,  nor  did  He 
press  any  unduly.  On  the  contrary,  He  called 
upon  all  to  sit  down  and  count  the  cost,  employing 
ludicrous  images  to  depict  what  the  consequences 
might  be  if  they  came  after  Him  without  doing  so. 


THE  CROSS  AND  OFFENCES 


219 


The  figure  cut  by  a  man  who,  without  calculation, 
begins  to  build  a  house  but  is  not  able  to  finish  it, 
or  by  a  general  who  with  five  thousand  men  goes 
to  meet  an  enemy  who  comes  against  him  with  fifty 
thousand,  is  not  more  unenviable  than  may  be  that 
of  the  man  who,  under  a  sudden  impulse  towards 
religion,  begins  to  follow  Christ  without  sufficient 
reflection.  Jesus  never  said  that  it  is  easy  to  be  a 
Christian :  He  called  men  to  follow  Him ;  but  He 
warned  them  that,  if  they  did  so,  they  would  have 
to  face  a  variety  of  hardships ;  and  the  name  in  His 
mouth  for  all  these  put  together  was  the  Cross. 

So  accustomed  are  we  to  the  use  of  this  term  that 
the  originality  and  the  pathos  of  it  in  the  mouth  of 
Jesus  may  escape  notice.  As  far  as  I  am  aware, 
it  originated  with  Him ;  and  it  is  interesting  to 
consider  out  of  what  experience  it  arose.  It  is  quite 
possible  that,  when  very  young,  He  may  have  wit¬ 
nessed  the  act  of  crucifixion,  this  punishment  being 
common  in  Palestine.  He  may,  as  a  boy,  have  fol¬ 
lowed  the  noisy  crowd  and  watched  the  miserable 
victims  on  the  way  to  execution.  His  sensitive  soul 
would  take  in  all  the  horror  of  this  most  ghastly  of 
all  punishments  ;  but  one  trait  of  cruelty  and  scorn 
appears  especially  to  have  stung  His  imagination. 
This  was  the  fact  that  from  the  place  of  detention 
to  the  place  of  execution  the  condemned  man  had, 
amid  the  laughter  and  jeers  of  the  multitude,  to  carry 
on  his  own  back  the  apparatus  of  his  doom — an 


220 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


indignity  which,  as  far  as  I  remember,  is  without  a 
parallel.  This  burned  in  the  memory  of  Jesus ; 
and,  when  He  required  a  name  for  all  that  can  be 
imagined  of  shame  and  suffering,  He  said,  “  Let  him 
take  up  his  cross  and  follow  Me.” 

It  will  occur  to  some  readers  that  it  was  connected 
with  the  anticipation  of  His  own  death.  The  Gospels 
represent  Him  as  foreseeing  and  predicting  not  only 
the  fatal  issue  of  the  opposition  He  encountered,  but 
likewise  the  manner  of  the  same ;  and  it  is  possible 
that  the  designation  of  the  sufferings  of  His  followers 
by  the  name  of  the  cross  may  both  confirm  these 
predictions  and  carry  them  back  to  an  earlier  period 
of  His  ministry  than  the  point  at  which  the  Synop- 
tists  report  Him  as  beginning  to  refer  to  this  subject. 
He  may  have  meant  that  they  were  to  be  sharers 
in  His  sufferings,  although  I  do  not  remember  that 
He  ever  referred  to  the  trials  they  were  to  endure 
as  His  cross.  If  we  were  satisfied  that  this  was  His 
meaning,  we  could  hardly  look  upon  it  as  a  chance 
that,  on  the  way  to  Calvary,  when  He  turned  out 
to  be  too  weak  to  bear  the  heavy  burden  of  His 
own  cross,  a  passer-by  was  seized  upon,  by  the 
soldiers — no  doubt  to  the  intense  amusement  and 
uproarious  delight  of  the  crowd — to  carry  the  cross 
in  His  stead.  We  should,  in  that  case,  be  almost 
driven  to  regard  this  as  a  symbolical  incident ;  as, 
indeed,  the  victim  of  the  soldier’s  joke  appears  himself 
to  have  found  it ;  because  in  the  narrative  he  is 


THE  CROSS  AND  OFFENCES 


221 


referred  to  as  “  the  father  of  Alexander  and  Rufus  ” 
— these  being  in  all  probability  well-known  Christian 
brethren — and  it  is  very  natural  to  suppose  that  the 
bearing  of  the  visible  cross  by  Simon  led,  in  the 
providence  of  God,  to  his  taking  up  the  invisible 
one.* 

Whether  or  not  Jesus  was  thinking  of  His  own 
sufferings  when  He  first  employed  this  name  for 
the  sufferings  of  His  people,  at  all  events  the  cross 
is,  in  its  essence,  the  same  to  them  as  it  was  to 
Him  ;  and  it  is  by  ascertaining  what  it  was  to  Him 
that  we  ascertain  what  it  is  intended  to  be  to  all. 

To  Him  it  was  two  things — first,  the  last  step  of 
submission  to  His  Father’s  will  and,  secondly,  the 
last  act  of  opposition  to  Him  on  the  part  of  men. 
That  which  distinguished  the  man  Christ  Jesus  from 

*  “  When  I  was  an  object  of  much  contempt  and  derision  in 
the  University,  I  strolled  forth  one  day,  buffeted  and  afflicted, 
with  my  little  Greek  Testament  in  my  hand.  I  prayed  earnestly 
to  my  God  that  He  would  comfort  me  with  some  cordial  from 
His  Word,  and  that,  on  opening  the  book,  I  might  find  some 
text  which  should  sustain  me.  It  was  not  for  direction  I  was 
looking,  for  I  am  no  friend  to  such  superstitions  as  the  sortes 
VirgilianGB ,  but  only  for  support.  The  first  text  which  caught 
my  eye  was  this  :  ‘  They  found  a  man  of  Cyrene,  Simon  byname  ; 
him  they  compelled  to  bear  His  cross.’  You  know,  Simon  is  the 
same  as  Simeon.  What  a  word  of  instruction  was  here,  what 
a  blessed  hint  for  my  encouragement !  To  have  the  cross  laid 
upon  me,  that  I  might  bear  it  after  Jesus — what  a  privilege  !  It 
was  enough.  Now  I  could  leap  and  sing  for  joy  as  one  whom 
Jesus  was  honouring  with  a  participation  of  His  sufferings” — 
Bishop  Moule’s  Charles  Simeon ,  p.  72. 


222 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


all  the  other  children  of  men  was,  that  at  every  step 
He  perfectly  fulfilled  the  will  of  God.  ,  But  God’s 
will  was  not  to  Him,  any  more  than  to  the  other 
sons  of  Adam,  easy  of  fulfilment.  It  led  Him  in  a 
way  that  was  very  strait  and  that,  as  He  advanced, 
became  dark  and  intricate,  till  He  cried  out  that 
He  whose  will  He  had  ever  followed  had  forsaken 
Him.  In  Gethsemane  He  groaned  amidst  His  tears, 
“  Not  My  will,  but  Thine  be  done,”  and  the  next 
and  last  step  was  the  cross.  Such  was  the  cross 
from  one  point  of  view.  From  another  it  was  the 
last  act  of  human  opposition.  Jesus  was  the  brother- 
best  of  all  the  sons  of  men,  and  Fie  went  about 
continually  doing  good.  He  might  have  been  the 
lord  and  master,  but  He  made  Himself  the  servant 
of  all.  From  which  it  follows,  that,  if  there  were 
reason  in  human  conduct,  He  ought  to  have  been 
the  most  popular  and  best-beloved  of  the  species. 
But  there  is  a  strange  twist  in  the  human  mind, 
which  makes  it  often  hostile  to  its  best  benefactors ; 
and  so  He  was  despised  and  rejected  ;  and  they  hated 
Him  without  a  cause.  Month  after  month  this  grew 
worse  and  worse,  and  the  climax  was  the  cross. 

Now,  what  the  cross  was  to  Him,  such  also  is 
it  to  those  who  follow  Him.  First,  it  is  the  pain 
involved  in  doing  the  will  of  God.  “  Whoso  doeth 
the  will  of  My  Father  which  is  in  heaven,  the  same 
is  My  mother  and  sister  and  brother.”  This  is  the 
path  for  all  disciples ;  but  for  them,  being  what 


THE  CROSS  AND  OFFENCES 


223 


they  are,  it  cannot  be  an  easy  one ;  because  their 
thoughts  are  not  God’s  thoughts  nor  their  ways  His 
ways.  Accordingly,  they  have  to  give  up  their  own 
thoughts,  ways  and  wills.  But  what  are  a  man’s 
thoughts,  ways  and  will  but  himself?  So  that  he  has 
to  give  up  himself.  Thus  exactly  did  Jesus  read 
the  case,  when  He  said,  “Let  him  deny  himself”; 
and,  because  the  occasions  for  such  self-sacrifice  are 
occurring  every  hour,  he  added  “  daily.”  “  Let  him 
deny  himself  and  take  up  his  cross  daily  and  follow 
Me.”  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  for  them  also  a  general 
name  for  the  opposition  of  the  world.  If  Christians 
are  like  their  Master,  they  will  be  benefactors  of 
their  species,  and  in  many  different  forms  and  tones 
He  charges  them  to  be  so.  It  might  be  expected 
to  follow  that  they  would  be  popular  with  the  public, 
to  whose  welfare  they  are  prepared  to  sacrifice  their 
own  ease  and  substance.  But  Jesus  did  not  expect 
this:  on  the  contrary,  He  told  them,  “Ye  shall  be 
hated  of  all  men.”  The  same  perversity  which  made 
Him  the  mark  for  the  hostility  of  those  for  whom 
He  was  ready  to  die  would  operate  to  similar  effects, 
in  their  experience.  “The  disciple,”  said  He,  “is 
not  above  his  master,  nor  the  servant  above  his  lord. 
It  is  enough  for  the  disciple  to  be  as  his  master, 
and  the  servant  as  his  lord.  If  they  have  called 
the  Master  of  the  house  Beelzebub,  how  much  more 
shall  they  call  them  of  His  household  ?  ” 

Such  was  the  essence  of  the  cross,  and  such  is 


224 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


its  essence  in  all  generations.  As  for  its  forms, 
these  were,  according  to  the  testimony  of  Christ, 
to  be  very  various.  One  form  in  which  He  saw 
it  impending  was  the  disruption  of  families — “Think 
not  that  I  am  come  to  send  peace  on  earth,  but 
a  sword  ;  for  I  am  come  to  set  a  man  at  variance 
with  his  father,  and  the  daughter  against  her  mother, 
and  the  daughter-in-law  against  her  mother-in-law  ; 
and  a  man’s  foes  shall  be  they  of  his  own  household.” 
To  one  who  revered  the  family  as  Jesus  did,  such 
a  prospect  must  have  been  an  appalling  one  ;  but 
He  perceived  that  the  path  to  the  regeneration 
of  the  world  passed  this  way,  and  He  made  up  His 
mind  for  the  inevitable.  Then,  as  the  scope  of  the 
movement  inaugurated  by  Him  widened,  it  would 
come  into  collision  with  the  powers  of  the  State  ;  and 
He  foresaw  and  foretold,  what  actually  came  to  pass, 
that  prosecutions  would  rage,  in  which  the  faithful 
would  have  to  stand  before  kings  and  councils  ;  and 
many  would  suffer  punishment,  some  even  being 
crucified  as  He  was  to  be  Himself. 

The  reason  why  the  religion  of  Jesus  was  thus 
to  come  into  collision  with  existing  institutions  lay 
in  its  propagandist  genius.*  In  its  very  nature  it 
is  a  light  which  must  shine ;  and  it  is  the  will  of 
its  Author  that  it  should  do  so.  To  no  follower 
of  His,  therefore,  could  He  spare  the  exertion  of 

*  “  Hostility  to  the  world  was  not  required  of  the  votaries  of 
ancient  faiths.”— Strong,  Christian  Ethics ,  p.  131.  * 


THE  CROSS  AND  OFFENCES 


225 


bearing  testimony  on  behalf  of  his  religion,  though 
in  multitudes  of  cases  this  must  be  one  of  the  severest 
of  crosses.  “  Whosoever  shall  confess  Me  before 
men,  him  will  I  confess  before  My  Father  which  is 
in  heaven,  but  whosoever  shall  deny  Me  before  men, 
him  will  I  deny  before  My  Father  which  is  in 

f  J 

heaven.”  Jesus  did  not,  like  Mohammed,  call  upon 
those  who  followed  Him  to  draw  the  sword  and 
conquer  the  world  ;  but  He  called  on  them  to  do 
that  which  is  more  perilous — to  conquer  the  world 
without  a  sword.  The  Christianization  of  the  world 
was  imposed  by  Jesus  as  a  task  on  all  His  followers  ; 
and  what  a  task  it  is  !  It  involves  the  redressing 
of  ancient  wrongs,  the  uprooting  of  evil  customs, 
the  overthrow  of  obnoxious  institutions.  And  none 
of  these  things  can  be  done  without  exciting 
opposition  ;  for  the  abuses  to  be  reformed  are  sup¬ 
ported  by  public  opinion  and  in  many  cases  by  the 
law  of  the  land  ;  men  have  their  interests  vested  in 
them,  and  assuredly  will  not  yield  without  a  struggle. 
The  deeper  any  disciple’s  sympathy  with  the  aims  of 
the  Saviour,  the  heavier  is  his  cross ;  because  the 
sight  of  a  perishing  world  will  torture  him,  the  aspects 
of  abounding  iniquity  will  distress  him,  the  slow 
progress  of  goodness  will  madden  him,  the  failure 
of  his  own  attempts  to  do  good  will  haunt  him  ; 
and  he  will  often  be  driven  in  desperation  to  cast 
his  burden  on  the  Lord  in  prayer. 

But,  although  Christ  never  concealed  the  cross, 

15 


226 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


He  did  not  doubt  that  it  was  wise  to  carry  it ; 
because  the  compensation  would  be  far  beyond  the 
sacrifice.  Not  infrequently  have  self-denial  and  self- 
sacrifice  been  spoken  of  as  if  they  were  good  in 
themselves,  apart  from  any  ulterior  advantage.  But 
there  is  no  such  affectation  in  the  words  of  Christ. 
Pain  is  pain  ;  it  is  the  natural  instinct  of  man  to 
avoid  it ;  and  it  is  folly  to  incur  it,  when  this  can  be 
helped,  unless  thereby  a  proportionate  good  is  to  be 
obtained — or  rather  a  pleasure  excelling  the  pain,  a 
gain  in  excess  of  the  outlay.  To  this  principle  of 
common  sense  Jesus  was  absolutely  loyal. 

Sometimes,  indeed,  His  appeal  was,  in  the  first 
place,  to  the  heart :  He  simply  intimated,  in  speaking 
of  the  cross  which  those  who  followed  Him  would 
have  to  bear,  that  it  was  to  be  borne  for  His  sake,  as 
if  no  more  required  to  be  said.  Sometimes  He 
points  to  His  own  example,  as  in  the  words  already 
quoted,  “  The  servant  is  not  above  his  master ;  it  is 
enough  that  the  servant  be  as  his  master.”  And 
sometimes  He  appealed  to  the  example  of  the 
prophets,  assuring  His  followers  that,  the  more  they 
sacrificed  in  the  cause,  the  higher  would  they  be 
advanced  in  the  company  of  the  heroes  :  “  Blessed 
are  ye  when  men  shall  revile  you  and  persecute  you 
and  shall  say  all  manner  of  evil  against  you  falsely 
for  My  sake  ;  rejoice  and  be  exceeding  glad  ;  for 
great  is  your  reward  in  heaven ;  for  so  persecuted 
they  the  prophets  which  were  before  you.”  But  the 


THE  CROSS  AND  OFFENCES 


227 


appeal  was  oftener  to  the  head  than  to  the  heart. 
The  intellectual  appeal  occurs  in  many  forms  ;  but 
the  following  is  the  most  characteristic :  “  For,  who¬ 
soever  shall  save  his  life  shall  lose  it,  and  whosoever 
shall  lose  his  life  for  My  sake,  the  same  shall  save  it.” 
He  admits  that  to  take  up  the  cross  is  equivalent  to 
the  losing  of  one’s  life  ;  and  this  may  mean  of  course 
that  it  will  involve  sudden  and  violent  death  :  as 
much  as  this  it  has  meant  in  innumerable  cases.  But 
life  may  be  said  to  be  lost  when  that  is  lost  which 
makes  it  pleasant  and  enjoyable.  And  it  is  pleasant 
to  follow  one’s  own  will  and  wishes  ;  it  is  pleasant  to 
sail  with  the  tide,  to  have  no  scruples  about  the  aims 
which  the  majority  are  following,  and  to  be  burdened 
with  no  principles  which  the  majority  disapprove. 
Sin  is  pleasant,  casting  over  existence  a  many- 
coloured  glare  of  excitement  and  allowing  free  play 
to  the  strongest  passions.  All  this  is  lost  by 
following  Christ.  On  the  contrary,  by  refusing  to 
follow  Him  life  is  saved.  The  tears  of  repentance 
and  the  reproaches  of  conscience  are  saved ;  the 
scorn  of  the  world  and  the  charge  of  strictness  and 
singularity  are  saved  ;  anxiety  and  exertion  for  the 
salvation  of  others  are  saved,  the  world  being  left  to 
go  its  own  way  and  to  be  happy  or  miserable, 
virtuous  or  vicious,  as  it  can  or  will.  All  this  Jesus 
conceded  ;  and  yet  He  held  that  he  who  saves  his 
life  in  this  way  loses  it,  and  he  who  loses  it  saves  it. 
Does  this  mean  that,  although  he  saves  it  in  this 


228 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


world,  he  will  lose  it  in  the  world  to  come,  and  that 
if  he  loses  it  in  this  world,  he  will  save  it  in  the  world 
to  come?  Certainly  it  includes  this — the  words  have 
just  been  quoted,  “Great  is  your  reward  in  heaven” 
• — and  this  is  no  small  part  of  Christ’s  thought.  But 
it  is  not  the  whole  of  it.  He  meant  that,  even  in  this 
world,  those  who  save  their  life  by  refusing  to  follow 
Him  lose  it,  and  those  who  lose  it  for  His  sake  save 
it.  This  is  proved  by  the  remarkable  words  in  Luke 
xviii.  29,  30:  “Verily  I  say  unto  you,  there  is  no 
man  that  hath  left  house  or  parents  or  brethren  or 
wife  or  children  for  the  kingdom  of  God’s  sake  who 
shall  not  receive  manifold  more  in  this  present  time,  and 
in  the  world  to  come  life  everlasting  ” — a  saying  the 
full  scope  of  which  is  not  easily  put  into  words.  But 
it  at  least  means  this  :  that  the  happiness  sacrificed  is 
a  mean  one  and  the  happiness  gained  a  noble  one  ; 
or,  happiness  is  lost,  but  blessedness  is  won. 

Such  truths  lie  very  near  the  centre  of  the  teaching 
of  Jesus.  Yet  we  cannot  forget  that  the  history  of 
the  Church  for  fifteen  hundred  years  has*  been 
darkened  by  a  misapprehension  of  this  class  of 
sayings  ;  for  it  is  on  such  sayings  of  our  Lord  that 
the  institution  of  monasticism  is  founded,  which  has 
flourished  for  so  many  centuries  and  is  still  absorbing 
the  lives  and  energies  of  multitudes  of  men  and 
women  in  both  the  Eastern  and  the  Western 
Churches.  And,  while  not  withholding  from  many 
who  have  sacrificed  their  lives  on  this  altar  a  measure 


THE  CROSS  AND  OFFENCES 


229 


of  admiration  for  their  self-control,  their  moral 
courage  and  their  services  to  the  suffering  and  the 
ignorant,  we  cannot  but  look  upon  the  system  as  a 
terrible  delusion,  which  warns  us  how  even  the  best 
teaching  in  the  world  may  be  distorted  into  error. 

The  prime  mistake  of  monasticism  is,  that  it  makes 
self-denial  an  end  in  itself,  whereas  Jesus  made  it 
only  a  means  to  an  end.  Its  three  vows  of  chastity, 

% 

poverty  and  obedience  dishonour  things  that  are 
great  gifts  of  God  and  crush  sentiments  with  which 
God  is  well  pleased.  It  withdraws  from  the  service 
of  the  world  multitudes  who  are  needed  to  elevate 
its  ordinary  life  and  discharge  its  necessary  work, 
consigning  them  to  a  solitude  which,  it  is  to  be 
feared,  is  often  the  reverse  of  what  it  is  intended  to 
be.  It  gives  to  officials  a  power  over  their  fellows 
which  no  mere  man  should  possess,  and  breaks  down 
in  the  rank  and  file  that  power  of  personal  choice 
which  is  the  very  mainspring  of  the  moral  life.  In 
a  book  on  the  Ethical  Teaching  of  Jesus,  to  which 
reference  was  made  on  an  earlier  page* — the  book 
of  a  thorough  materialist,  writing  for  the  Socialist 
masses  of  Germany — the  teaching  of  Jesus  on  this 
subject  is,  without  hesitation  or  discussion,  identified 
with  the  teaching  of  the  Church  ;  and  this  is  the 
worst  feature  of  the  whole  case — that  Jesus  is  made 
responsible  for  sentiments  which  are  utterly  at 
variance  with  His  own  ;  and  thereby  multitudes  of 


*  Rau,  Die  Ethik  Jesu. 


230 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


human  souls  are  repelled  from  Him  as  a  teacher 
whom  they  cannot  trust. 

There  is  another  side  of  the  teaching  of  our 
Lord  on  this  subject  with  which  is  connected  a  word 
that  is  almost  as  much  a  vox  signata  in  His  voca¬ 
bulary  as  the  word  Cross  itself.  This  is  the  word 
Offence  or  Offences.  In  ordinary  parlance  “offence” 
means  insult  or  displeasure ;  but,  in  the  mouth  of 
Jesus,  its  meaning  is  a  technical  one:  it  signifies 
temptation.  To  offend  anyone  is  to  draw  him  away 
from  discipleship  and  make  him  a  backslider.  The 
original  is  “  scandal  ”  ;  and  the  Greek  word  *  meant 
literally  the  upright  stick  in  a  trap,  to  which  the 
bait  was  attached,  and  which,  when  touched,  caused 
the  trap  to  close  over  the  animal.  Offences  are  traps 
to  entice  and  betray  unwary  disciples ;  they  are 
stumbling-blocks  laid  in  the  path  that  leads  to 
Christ  and  heaven,  in  order  to  make  those  who 
would  follow  Christ  lose  their  way.  But  the  point 
to  be  specially  noted  is,  that  the  objects  designated 
by  the  word  “  offences  ”  in  the  mouth  of  Christ  are 
precisely  the  same  as  those  included  under  the 
term  “  cross.”  The  cross,  in  Christ’s  vocabulary,  is 
a  comprehensive  term  for  everything  that  makes  it 
difficult  to  obey  the  call  to  follow  Him,  and  the 
word  “  offences  ”  covers  the  same  class  of  objects  :  the 


*  crKavbaXov  for  aKav8d\r]0pov. 


THE  CROSS  AND  OFFENCES 


231 


difference  being  this,  that  these  difficulties  are  called 
by  the  one  name  when  anyone  is  suffering  from 
them,  but  by  the  other  when  anyone  is  causing 
others  to  suffer  from  them. 

To  bear  the  cross  is  an  honour,  but  to  give  offence 
is  a  crime.  In  the  eyes  of  Jesus  this  was  a  sin  of 
unspeakable  horror,  as  may  be  inferred  from  these 
words  in  which  He  spoke  of  it :  “  But  whoso  shall 
offend  one  of  these  little  ones  which  believe  in  Me, 
it  were  better  for  him  that  a  millstone  were  hanged 
about  his  neck  and  that  he  were  drowned  in  the 
depth  of  the  sea.” 

The  discourse  in  which  Jesus  expressed  His  full 
mind  on  the  subject  of  offences  is  not  so  well  known 
as  it  deserves  to  be  ;  and  many  who  read  it  do 
not  perceive  how  far  down  the  chapter  the  subject 
is  carried  :  it  is  supposed  that  He  has  finished  with 
this  topic  and  passed  on  to  others,  when  in  reality 
He  is  still  pursuing  the  same  train  of  thought.  It 
is  reported  in  the  eighteenth  chapter  of  St.  Matthew  ; 
and  it  is  worthy  of  notice  that,  while  deliyering  it, 
Jesus  was  in  an  extraordinary  attitude:  He  had  a 
child  all  the  time  standing  at  His  knee.  This  was 
one  of  His  disciples  ;  for  then,  as  now,  not  a  few 
of  His  most  affectionate  and  loyal  followers  were 
children.  Embracing  him,  then,  with  His  knees, 
touching  him  with  His  fingers,  hanging  over  him 
with  an  air  of  protection — “  as  a  hen  gathereth  her 
chickens  under  her  wings  ” — He  deprecated  the 


232 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


attempts  of  the  ruthless  and  heartless  to  offend 
such — that  is,  to  pluck  them  out  of  His  hands  and 
withdraw  them  from  His  discipleship.  In  this  situa¬ 
tion,  the  flow  of  His  thoughts  took  a  wide  sweep,  but 
the  following  were  His  principal  ideas. 

First,  in  order  to  bring  out  the  diabolical  nature  of 
offences,  He  contrasts  those  who  indulge  in  them 
with  all  that  is  heavenly.  Thus,  the  angels  are 
protectors  of  those  who  follow  Christ :  “  In  heaven 
their  angels  do  always  behold  the  face  of  My  Father 
which  is  in  heaven  ” :  that  is  to  say,  they  occupy 
the  front  rank,  and  stand  nearest  the  divine  presence. 
It  is  not  by  the  humblest  but  the  highest  angels 
that  the  interests  of  the  little  ones  among  Christ’s 
followers  are  guarded.  But  this  conduct  on  the  part 
of  angels  is  only  an  imitation  of  that  of  the  Lord  of 
angels  :  “  Even  so  it  is  not  the  will  of  your  Father 
which  is  in  heaven  that  one  of  these  little  ones  should 
perish  ” :  it  may  be  the  will  of  those  who  offend 
them,  but  it  is  the  sheer  opposite  of  the  will  of  God. 
If  this  is  true  of  the  Father,  it  is  no  less  true  of 
the  Son  ;  “  for  the  Son  of  man  is  come  to  seek  and 
to  save  that  which  was  lost.”  Probably  these  words 
were  spoken  by  Jesus  also  on  other  occasions,  but 
there  is  an  obvious  propriety  in  their  occurrence  here  *  ; 
because  there  could  be  nothing  in  more  absolute 
contradiction  with  the  whole  aim  and  drift  of  the 
life  of  Christ  than  the  conduct  of  those  who  offend 


*  Reading,  however,  doubtful. 


THE  CROSS  AND  OFFENCES 


233 


His  followers — that  is,  endeavour  to  turn  them  back 
from  the  way  of  salvation. 

There  are  two  forms  which  offences  may  assume. 
First,  the  blow  may  be  delivered  in  the  region  of 
the  intellect  by  the  arguments  of  an  enemy,  who 
confuses  the  mind  of  the  disciple,  shaking  his  con¬ 
fidence  in  the  Saviour  or  instilling  false  views  in 
place  of  the  pure  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus.  Again 
and  again  did  Jesus  warn  His  followers  against 
such  false  prophets.  They  would  come,  He  said, 
“  in  sheep’s  clothing  ” — that  is,  with  captivating  words 
and  elegance  of  manners,  with  lofty  professions  of 
sincerity  and  airs  of  impartiality — “  but  inwardly  they 
are  ravening  wolves.”  It  is  often  taken  for  granted 
that  the  dissemination  of  religious  opinions  is  free, 
of  whatever  nature  these  may  be  ;  but  to  assume 
this  is  to  confuse  freedom  towards  men  with  freedom 
towards  God.  As  regards  men,  all  have  the  right 
to  the  free  expression  of  opinion  ;  but,  as  regards 
God,  there  is  no  responsibility  more  grave ;  and  the 
publication  of  opinions  by  which  faith  is  shaken  or 
morality  undermined,  if  the  motive  be  one  of  levity 
or  vanity  or  self-interest,  is  one  of  the  gravest  of 
crimes.  If  the  motive  be  a  conscientious  one,  still 
the  injury  may  be  grave,  and  the  case  may  be  too 
intricate  for  human  decision  ;  but  God  will  judge  it.* 

*  Herrmann  ( Etliik ,  p.  70)  shows  how,  by  the  sophistries  of 
what  he  calls  Eudaemonistic  Ethics,  the  pain  of  an  awakened 
conscience  may  be  dulled,  and  so  the  soul  turned  aside  from 


234 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


The  other  form  of  offence  is  one  less  difficult  to 
judge  ;  for  it  is  the  rude  and  reckless  attempt  to 
stifle  religion  in  the  birth  by  laughter  and  scorn, 
or  by  any  of  the  many  other  concrete  forms  of 
persecution.  So  malignant  and  diabolical  is  such 
conduct,  that  it  might  be  supposed  to  be  rare  in 
the  world,  or  confined  to  heathen  and  barbarous 
states  of  society.  But  to  suppose  so  is  to  be  very 
ignorant  of  human  nature  and  of  the  actual  world 
in  which  we  live  ;  the  fact  being  that  few  begin 
to  walk  in  the  narrow  way  without  a  deliberate 
attempt  being  made  by  some  emissary  of  the  Tempter 
to  turn  them  back.* * 

So  formidable  were  the  words  of  Jesus  on  this 
subject  that  they  struck  a  responsive  chord  in  one 
sensitive  heart  in  His  audience.  The  Apostle  John 
interrupted  the  discourse  with  the  remark,  “  Master, 
we  saw  one  casting  out  devils  in  Thy  name,  and 
we  forbade  him,  because  he  followeth  not  with  us.” 

seeking  that  refuge  to  which  it  is  being  driven  by  its  despair. 
This  author  is  very  clear  and  firm  on  the  contrast  between 
Philosophical  and  Christian  Ethics  at  the  critical  point — where, 
in  Christian  experience,  pessimism  passes  into  optimism. 

*  For  an  instance  of  this,  the  subsequent  effects  of  which 
were  tragic,  see  the  story,  in  Dr.  John  Paton’s  Autobiography,  of 
the  convert  Mungaw,  whom  the  missionary  took  with  him  to 
Australia,  as  a  specimen  of  the  work  of  the  mission,  but  whom 
some  white  men  there  got  hold  of,  in  the  missionary’s  absence, 
and  initiated  so  well  into  their  own  sins,  that  he  became  not  only 
a  backslider,  but  a  maniac,  causing  endless  trouble  when  he 
returned  to  the  Islands. 


THE  CROSS  AND  OFFENCES 


235 


To  the  unstudious  reader  it  may  appear  that  this 
was  an  irrelevant  remark  ;  but  there  had  shot  across 
the  mind  of  the  sensitive  apostle  a  fear  lest,  in  this 
case,  they  had  quenched  the  zeal  of  one  who  might 
be  reckoned  among,  the  little  ones  to  whom  Jesus 
had  so  feelingly  referred.  And  it  is  noteworthy 
that  Jesus  did  not  good-naturedly  calm  the  disciple’s 
apprehensions,  but,  on  the  contrary,  gave  him  to 
understand  that  these  were  justified,  and  cautioned 
him  against  the  repetition  of  his  mistake.  Thus 
it  would  appear  that  even  disciples,  or  even  apostles, 
may  offend,  an  excessive  zeal  for  that  company  of 
Christ’s  followers  to  which  they  themselves  belong 
leading  them  to  disown  other  followers  of  the  same 
Master  who  may  belong  to  a  different  company, 
or  an  undue  importance  attached  to  order  and 
decorum  betraying  them  into  harshness  towards  a 
beginner  who  has  a  little  outrun  discretion,  but  who 
has  begun  earnestly  to  bear  witness  to  the  same  Lord. 

Having  thus  made  the  Twelve  aware  that  even 
they  were  not  out  of  danger,  He  followed  up 
the  impression  with  a  still  more  interior  and  subtle 
caution.  Even  when  nothing  positive  is  done  to 
cause  a  brother  'to  stumble,  the  law  of  love  may 
be  transgressed  by  merely  keeping  at  a  distance 
from  one  who  has  fallen.  When  anyone  who  has 
made  a  profession  draws  back  or  by  some  glaring 
act  of  inconsistency  brings  dishonour  on  the  cause, 
the  temptation  is  strong  to  leave  him  alone  ;  indeed, 


236 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


it  may  be  a  reproach  to  have  anything  to  do  with 
him.  Many  a  backslider  has  been  made  to  feel 
this,  and  the  coldness  of  his  former  associates  has 
driven  him  farther  away.  But  Jesus  will  not  have 
it.  He  supposes  an  extreme  case — one  in  which 
the  fall  of  a  backslider  has  been  a  wrong  inflicted 
on  yourself.  Even  in  such  circumstances  you  must 
not  forsake  him,  but  go  and  tell  him  his  fault, 
first  between  you  and  him  alone ;  then,  if  this 
fail,  in  the  presence  of  witnesses ;  you  must  leave 
no  stone  unturned  to  regain  the  erring  brother. 
For  it  is  the  soul — the  priceless  soul — that  is  at 
stake ;  and  to  contribute  to  the  loss  of  it,  even 
by  neglect,  is  at  the  opposite  extreme  from  the 
spirit  and  the  mission  of  Jesus. 

Our  Lord,  however,  did  not  conclude  His  re¬ 
flections  on  this  dark  subject  without  turning  out  its 
sunny  side,  reminding  His  hearers  that,  in  many 
ways,  they  might  do  the  reverse  of  offending  His 
little  ones,  and  that  anything  done  to  protect 
these  from  offence,  to  cheer  them  under  discourage¬ 
ment,  and  to  send  them  on  their  way  rejoicing 
would  be  acceptable  in  the  eyes  of  Heaven.  Such 
was  the  thought  He  expressed  in  language  of 
inimitable  loveliness,  when  He  thus  brought  the 
discourse  on  offences  to  a  close :  “  Whosoever  shall 
give  to  drink  to  one  of  these  little  ones  a  cup  of 
cold  water  only,  in  the  name  of  a  disciple,  he 
shall  in  no  wise  lose  his  reward.’* 


THE  CROSS  AND  OFFENCES 


237 


Thus  have  we  concluded  the  portion  of  out- 
subject,  under  the  title  of  Virtue,  which  is  the 
most  characteristic  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus.  The 
earlier  portion,  under  the  title  of  the  Highest 
Good,  sets  forth  the  supreme  aim  of  the  Christian 
life ;  and  the  portion  still  to  come,  under  the  title 
of  Duty,  will  describe  the  several  steps  in  the 
path  ;  but  this  one  deals  with  the  internal  force 
by  which  the  steps  are  to  be  taken  and  the  end 
finally  secured. 

As  we  look  back  on  the  teaching  of  J  esus  under 
this  head,  we  perceive  that  its  peculiarity  consists 
in  deriving  this  strength  from  Himself.  More  and 
more  He  puts  Himself  into  the  centre  ;  and  it  is 
by  connection  with  Him  that  the  end  is  to  be 
achieved.  Under  a  variety  of  forms  He  calls  upon 
those  who  would  accept  His  guidance  to  attach 
themselves  to  Himself — to  turn  away  from  other 
masters,  to  come  to  Him,  to  follow  Him.  And  not 
only  were  they  thus  instructed  to  find  their  salvation 
by  allowing  themselves  to  be  drawn  closer  and 
closer  to  His  person,  as  long  as  He  was  there  with 
them  ;  but,  when  He  left  them,  they  were  to  watch 
for  His  reappearing.  Watchfulness  was  one  of  the 
keynotes  of  His  instruction  ;  and  it  meant  the 
preoccupation  of  the  mind  with  His  person.  The 
great  event  of  the  future  was  to  be  their  meeting 
with  Him  again  ;  and,  as  His  return  might  take 
place  at  any  moment — at  midnight,  or  at  cock- 


238 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


crowing,  or  in  the  morning — they  must  not  sleep, 
as  do  others,  but  watch  and  be  sober. 

All  this  was  very  simple,  when  He  was  there 
before  their  eyes,  or  when  they  still  might  expect 
Him  to  return  to  the  earth  in  their  own  generation. 
But  the  teaching  of  Jesus  was  for  all  generations, 
and  in  every  generation  His  disciples  must  be  able 
to  translate  the  essence  of  it  into  forms  suitable 
to  their  altered  circumstances.  Connection  with 
His  person,  preoccupation  with  His  image,  and 
the  anticipation  of  future  union  with  Him  will 
always  be  the  essentials  of  Christian  experience ; 
and  in  these  is  generated  the  virtue  on  which  the 
moral  victory  depends. 


PART  THIRD 

DUTY 


THE  LOVE  OF  GOD 


Matt.  iv.  4,  7,  io;  v.  33-37;  vi.  g,  io ;  vii.  21  ;  xii.  50;  xvi.  23; 

xxii.  21,  37,  40. 

Mark  viii.  33  ;  xii.  28-34. 

Luke  vii.  40-50 ;  x.  28  ;  xi.  42  ;  xii.  5  ;  xvii.  17-19  ;  xviii.  2,  4  ;  xx.  25  ; 

xxi.  1-4. 

Matt.  v.  8,  9,  16,  45,  48 ;  vi.  1,  4,  6,  8,  9,  n,  13,  14,  15,  18,  24,  26, 
30,  32  ;  vii.  II,  21  ;  ix.  38  ;  x.  20,  28,  29,  32,  33,  40  ;  xi.  25-27  ; 
xii.  4,  28,  31,  32,  50  ;  xiii.  43  ;  xv.  3,  4,  6,  13  ;  xvi.  17,  27  ; 
xviii.  10,  14,  19,  23-35  ;  xix.  4-6,  17,  24,  26  ;  xx.  23;  xxi.  13,  42  ; 

xxii.  29-32,  42-45  ;  xxiii.  9,  21,  22  ;  xxiv.  36 ;  xxvi.  29,  39 ; 
xx  viii.  19. 

Mark  i.  14,  15  ;  ii.  26  ;  vii.  8,  9,  13 ;  viii.  33,  38  ;  ix.  37  ;  x.  6,  9,  23, 
24,  27  ;  xi.  22-26  ;  xiii.  19,  20,  32  ;  xiv.  25,  36  ;  xv.  34- 
Luke  iv.  4,  8,  12;  vi.  20,  35,  36;  viii.  10,  11,  39;  x.  2,  21,  22; 
xi.  2-4,  13,  20,  28,  42,  49  ;  xv.  1-32;  xviii.  2,  4,  n,  13,  16,  17, 
19,  24,  25,  27,  29 ;  xx.  25,  36-38,  41-44 ;  xxi.  1-4  ;  xxiii.  34,  46. 


CHAPTER  XI. 


THE  LOVE  OF  GOD 


ESUS  has  Himself  made  it  easy  to  render  an 


account  of  His  teaching  on  the  subject  of  Duty 


— or  rather  Duties,  for  which  the  term  employed  by 
Him  was  Commandments — by  His  answer  to  the 
question,  once  propounded  to  Him,  “  Which  is  the 
great  commandment  in  the  law  ?  ”  “  Thou  shalt  love 

the  Lord  thy  God,”  was  His  reply,  “  with  all  thy 
heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  and  with  all  thy  mind. 
This  is  the  first  and  great  commandment ;  and  the 
second  is  like  unto  it :  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour 
as  thyself.”  * 

As  is  well  known,  Jesus  did  not  Himself  invent 
these  two  commandments.  He  found  them  both  in 
the  Law  of  Moses,  the  one  occurring  in  Deut.  vi.  5 
and  the  other  in  Lev.  xix.  18.  Whenever  it  was 
possible,  He  preferred,  instead  of  inventing  new 

*  Some  hold  that  in  this  great  saying  a  third  kind  of  love  is 
included — that  of  self.  So  Harless,  Syste?n  of  Christian  Ethics , 
p.  1 7:  “Self-love  is  presupposed  as  the  natural  basis  by  which 
man  is  enabled  to  understand  the  manner  and  measure  of  love 
for  his  neighbour  also.” 


241 


1 6 


242 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


forms,  to  make  use  of  the  materials  furnished  to 
His  hand  in  the  ancient  Scriptures  and  institutions 
of  His  race ;  and  there  is  sometimes  more  originality 
displayed  in  thus  recovering  an  old  thing,  trans¬ 
lating  it,  and  stamping  it  with  fresh  honour,  than 
in  inventing  one  absolutely  new. 

To  these  two  precepts  He  gave  an  entirely  novel 
significance  when,  picking  them  out  of  the  mass  of 
Old  Testament  precepts  in  which  they  were  em¬ 
bedded — and,  one  may  even  say,  lost — He  elevated 
them  to  shine  forever  as  the  sun  and  the  moon  of 
the  firmament  of  duty.  And,  at  the  same  time,  He 
immensely  simplified  morality.  In  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  there  were  such  multitudes  of  commandments 
that  the  conscience  was  perplexed  among  them ; 
and  the  confusion  was  worse  confounded  by  the 
subtleties  of  the  rabbis,  who,  in  their  zeal  to  put, 
as  they  phrased  it,  a  hedge  about  the  Law,  had 
split  up  every  commandment  into  a  dozen  or  a 
score.  Then  they  exercised  their  ingenuity  in  deter¬ 
mining  which  of  these  belonged  to  the  first,  which 
to  the  second  rank  of  importance,  and  so  on.  It 
is  not  certain  whether  it  was  in  this  logic-chopping 
spirit  that  the  scribe  came  to  Jesus  who  asked  which 
was  the  greatest  of  all  the  commandments.  The 
question  may  be  a  very  trivial,  but  it  may  also  be 
a  very  solemn  one.  If  prompted  not  by  curiosity 
but  by  conscience,  it  may  be  an  inquiry  as  to  what 
it  is  that  really  matters  in  the  eyes  of  God — ap- 


THE  LOVE  OF  GOD 


243 


proaching  near  to  what  is  intended  when  in  our  own 
day  it  is  asked  what  it  is  that  makes  a  Christian, 
and  not  differing  much  from  the  most  earnest  of  all 
questions,  “  What  must  I  do  to  be  saved  ?  ”  Perhaps 
we  ought  to  do  the  man  the  honour  of  attributing 
to  him  the  deeper  intention,  although  he  came  on 
the  scene  at  first  as  an  interrupter  and  enemy  of 
Jesus  ;  because  it  is  manifest  that  the  reply  of  Jesus 
lifted  him  completely  off  his  feet,  causing  him  to 
dissociate  himself  from  his  comrades  and  to  acknow¬ 
ledge,  in  a  tone  of  irrepressible  enthusiasm,  “Well, 
Master,  Thou  hast  said  the  truth ;  for  there  is  one 
God  ;  and  there  is  none  other  but  He  ;  and  to  love 
Him  with  all  the  heart,  and  with  all  the  under¬ 
standing,  and  with  all  the  soul,  and  with  all  the 
strength,  and  to  love  his  neighbour  as  himself,  is 
more  than  all  whole  burnt-offerings  and  sacrifices.” 
As  Jesus  said  about  him,  he  was  “not  far  from  the 
kingdom  of  God  ” :  he  was  a  man  of  sense,  accessible 
to  conviction  ;  and  the  moral  grandeur  of  the  law  of 
duty,  as  it  was  placed  before  him  by  Jesus,  converted 
him  into  a  confessor  of  the  truth.  The  confusion 
in  which  he  had  been  involved  by  the  logomachies 
of  his  tribe  melted  away,  and  he  rose  up  to  embrace 
the  moral  idea  in  its  simplicity  :  not  only  all  duty 
being  reduced  to  two  commandments,  but  these  two 
hemispheres  being  shown  to  have  a  common  centre  ; 
for  the  centre  of  both  is  love.  Yet,  though  simple, 
thif  “«nciple  is  perfectly  sufficient :  every  wrong 


244 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


done  to  our  neighbour  is  obviously  due  to  lack  of 
love  ;  for,  if  we  loved  him  enough,  how  could  we 
wrong  him  ?  and,  in  like  manner,  every  sin  against 
God  is  a  wrong  done  to  Him  of  which  we  could 
not  be  guilty  if  we  loved  Him  sufficiently.  On  the 
other  hand,  without  love,  what  are  duties  worth  ? 
As  the  Teacher  said,  “on  these  two  commandments 
hang  all  the  Law  and  the  Prophets.”  Duty  is  a 
chain  of  many  links,  suspended  from  these  two 
opposite  staples. 

How  original  the  commandment  to  love  God  is 
may  be  illustrated  by  a  remark  of  Aristotle.  “  Love 
to  God,”  he  observes,  “  does  not  exist :  it  is  absurd 
to  talk  of  such  a  thing  ;  for  God  is  an  unknowable 
being.”  *  Such  was  the  extent  of  the  insight  in 
such  matters  of  even  so  wise  a  heathen  ;  and  to 
the  present  day  philosophy  has  adhered  too  faith¬ 
fully  to  this  tradition,  the  love  of  God  being  a 
duty  of  which  most  systems  of  Moral  Philosophy 
have  not  the  faintest  inkling,  f  In  this  respect 
philosophy  has  remained  pagan,  at  least  in  our 
own  country,  not  rising  above  the  sentiment  of  the 
man  in  the  street,  who  would  treat  the  suggestion 
of  any  such  duty  as  an  hallucination  and  a  banality.  J 

*  Mag?i.  Moral .  ii.  1 1 . 

t  Compare  the  closing  pages  of  Kant’s  Kritik  der  firaktischen 
Vernunft. 

J  Of  this  there  is  a  well-known  instance  in  a  saying  preserved 
of  the  English  statesman  Pitt.  Chancing  to  visit  a  church  in 
which  a  sermon  had  been  preached  by  one  of  the  apostles  of 


THE  LOVE  OF  GOD 


245 


When  the  statesman  Wilberforce,  in  his  book  entitled 
A  Practical  View ,  was  contrasting  the  religion  pre¬ 
valent  among  the  higher  ranks  of  society  with  the 
religion  of  the  Bible,  he  fastened  on  this  as  the 
point  at  which  he  could  most  easily  demonstrate 
how  far  fashionable  religion  came  short  of  the 
standard  ;  and  he  could  appeal  to  what  was  a  fact 
of  general  knowledge  when  he  stated  that,  in  the 
circles  for  whose  benefit  he  was  writing,  any  expres¬ 
sions  of  love  to  God  would  be  regarded  as  symptoms 
of  odious  fanaticism ;  multitudes  of  the  most  culti¬ 
vated  people  in  England  believing  themselves  to 
be  religious  enough,  though  ready  to  confess  that 
they  possessed  nothing  of  the  kind.* *  In  opposition 
to  these  prejudices  he  proved,  in  this  epoch-making 
work,  that  love  to  God  holds  a  prominent  place 
in  Scripture,  and  especially  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus; 
and  he  went  on  to  plead  for  what  he  called  the 
presence  of  the  passions  in  religion  on  two  grounds 
-—first,  because  the  passions  require  the  control  of 

the  Evangelical  Revival,  the  doctrines  of  which  were  then  only 
beginning  to  be  heard  of,  he  bounced  out,  at  the  close  of  the 
service,  exclaiming  in  high  dudgeon,  i(  Why,  the  fellow  expects 
us  to  love  God  !  ” 

*  Observe  with  what  timidity  Bishop  Butler,  a  representative 
of  the  preceding  generation,  in  his  Two  Sermons  on  the  Love 
of  God,  approaches  anything  which  might  be  characterized  as 
enthusiasm,  and  how  soon  he  sinks  down  from  any  warmth  of 
feeling  towards  the  Deity  into  contentment  with  the  course  of 
Providence,  putting  off  to  a  future  state  all  demonstrations 
of  anything  like  lively  affection. 


246 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


religion,  and,  secondly,  because  religion  requires  the 
glow  and  the  force  which  only  the  passions  can 
supply,  to  enable  it  to  carry  out  its  difficult  tasks. 
Since  the  time  of  Wilberforce,  sentiment  on  this 
subject  has  greatly  altered.  Emotional  fervour  in 
religion  is  now  cultivated  by  the  most  fastidious  ; 
the  spirit  of  prayers  and  hymns  has  become  warmer  ; 
and  the  level  of  feeling  above  which  the  tone  of 
the  pulpit  was  never  formerly  allowed  to  rise  would 
in  our  day  be  considered  intolerably  frigid.  Above 
all,  we  now  possess  a  far  better  psychology  of 
religion.  In  the  highest  philosophical  circles  it  is 
beginning  to  be  recognised  that  man  is  a  religious 
being,  and  that  without  the  cultivation  of  his  religious 
nature  his  development  is  stunted  and  mutilated.* 
Hence  it  is  coming  to  be  not  only  a  dictum  of 
religion  but  a  postulate  of  philosophy,  that,  as  the 
human  heart  is  capable  of  putting  forth  divers 
blossoms  of  love  towards  human  beings,  each  of 
which  makes  life  richer  and  society  more  humane, 
so  love  to  God  is  a  capability  of  the  heart  the 
influence  of  which,  when  it  comes  to  fruition, 
cannot  but  be  deep  and  transforming ;  whereas 
a  member  of  the  human  family  who  does  not  love 
God  is  lacking  in  one  of  the  functions  of  a  complete 
humanity. 

From  the  nature  of  the  case  it  follows  that,  if 

*  In  the  recognition  of  this,  American  thinkers,  like  Royce  and 
James,  have  given  a  praiseworthy  lead. 


THE  LOVE  OF  GOD 


247 


the  love  of  God  is  natural  to  man,  it  ought  to  be 
a  supreme  passion  ;  for  not  only  is  God  the  supreme 
good,  the  source  of  all  beauty  and  excellence,  but 
vve  ourselves  are  of  Him  ;  He  is  our  Creator,  our 
Providence  and  our  Saviour.  With  this  corresponds 
the  sweeping  demand  made  in  the  commandment 
adopted  by  Jesus  as  His  own :  “  Thou  shalt  love 
the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,  with  all  thy 
soul,  with  all  thy  strength,  and  with  all  thy  mind.” 

In  these  terms  some  interpreters  have  recognised 
the  language  of  a  primitive  psychology,  an  attempt 
at  a  threefold  or  a  fourfold  division  of  human 
nature  ;  “  soul  ”  referring  to  emotion,  “  mind  ”  to 
intellect,  and  “  strength  ”  to  will.  But,  whatever 
may  be  thought  of  this  suggestion,  it  is  manifest 
that  the  words  are  intended  to  claim  for  God  the 
affection  of  human  nature  in  all  its  extent  and  in 
all  its  intensity. 

The  fact  that  this  commandment  was  fetched  by 
Jesus  out  of  the  Old  Testament  reminds  us  that 
between  His  teaching  and  that  of  the  Old  Testament 
on  this  subject  there  is  not  the  same  contrast  as  be-  ■ 
tween  the  Gospel  and  philosophy.  It  is  astonishing  to 
what  a  warmth  and  intensity  of  feeling  towards  the 
Divine  Being  some  of  the  spirits  of  the  Old  Testa-  \ 
ment  were  able  to  rise.  More  than  one  of  the  psalmists  ' 
say  in  so  many  words  :  “  I  love  the  Lord  ”  ;  and 
there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  in  the  centuries 
of  Hebrew  history  there  were  many  hearts  able 


248 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


to  adopt  as  their  own  such  passionate  appeals  to 
the  Deity  as,  “  Whom  have  I  in  heaven  but  Thee  ? 
and  there  is  none  on  earth  whom  I  desire  besides 
Thee.”  Still,  the  average  sentiment  of  the  pious 
Israelite  towards  his  Divinity  was  fear  ;  and  from 
the  Wisdom  Literature  it  may  be  gathered  that  for 
centuries  the  commonest  name  for  religion  was  “  the 
fear  of  the  Lord.”  So  far  from  dissociating  Himself 
from  this  conception  of  religion,  Jesus,  as  has  been 
already  pointed  out,  distinctly  acknowledges  its 
validity  in  such  a  saying  as  this :  “  Fear  Him  who, 
when  He  hath  killed,  hath  power  to  cast  into  hell  ; 
yea,  I  say  unto  you,  Fear  Him.”  There  may  have 
been  other  sentiments  towards  the  Deity,  appropriate 
to  an  earlier  stage  of  development,  which  Jesus 
acknowledged  ;  for  it  cannot  be  recalled  too  often 
that  He  came  not  to  destroy  but  to  fulfil.  But  now 
all  other  sentiments  were  to  be  subordinate  ;  and 
love  was  to  take  its  place  both  as  the  force  to 
drive  and  the  wisdom  to  guide  along  the  pathway 
of  progress  and  perfection. 

Important,  however,  as  was  the  service  rendered 
by  Jesus  to  Ethics  when  He  rescued  the  command¬ 
ment  to  love  God  from  its  obscure  place  in  the 
Pentateuch  and  emphasized  it  in  His  teaching  in 
the  manner  described,  this  was  not  His  weightiest 
contribution  to  the  subject.  Merely  to  reiterate  the 
commandment  to  love  God,  in  however  imperative 


THE  LOVE  OF  GOD 


249 


or  insistent  a  voice  this  may  be  done,  does  not,  after 
all,  help  much  :  it  does  not  make  it  any  easier  to 
fulfil  the  commandment  or  make  it  likely  that  many 
will  try  to  obey  it.  There  is  only  one  way  of 
making  a  commandment  to  love  easier :  namely, 
by  exhibiting  the  object  of  love  in  a  more  attractive 
light.  And  this  was  the  great  contribution  of  Jesus 
to  this  primary  duty  of  morality  :  He  made  God 
far  more  lovable  than  He  had  ever  appeared  before. 
To  prove  this,  it  will  be  necessary  to  indicate  the 
character  of  God,  as  it  appears  in  the  teaching  of 
Christ,  contrasting  it  with  earlier  revelations. 

First,  the  God  of  Jesus  is  a  God  known.  The 
reason  assigned  by  Aristotle  for  the  assertion  that 
God  cannot  be  loved  is  that  He  is  unknown ;  and, 
perhaps,  when  the  knowledge  accessible  to  the 
heathen  philosopher  is  taken  into  consideration, 
this  position  cannot  be  condemned  as  unreasonable. 
Some,  however,  at  the  present  day  have  advanced 

1 

no  further  :  while  not  categorically  asserting  that 
there  is  no  God,  they  hold  that  the  knowable  is 
confined  to  the  tangible  or  sensible,  and  that  what 
lies  beyond  is  out  of  reach  of  our  faculties.  Even 
those  who  acknowledge  the  existence  of  God  differ 
among  themselves  as  to  the  faculty  by  which  He 
is  apprehended,  some  assuming  Him  to  be  an 
object  of  immediate  intuition,  while  others  infer  His 
existence  and  attributes  as  the  result  of  a  long  and 
cumbrous  process  of  reasoning.  The  controversy 


250 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


about  the  value  and  cogency  of  the  evidences  of 
the  divine  existence  has  been  prolonged  and  intricate, 
and  it  appears  to  be  interminable.  But  Jesus  makes 
use  of  no  such  proofs.  He  moves  in  a  region  of 
absolute  certainty,  speaking  of  God  with  the 
confidence  of  one  who  possesses  the  most  intimate 
relations  with  Him  :  “  No  man  knoweth  the  Son  save 
the  Father;  neither  knoweth  any  man  the  Father 
save  the  Son,  and  he  to  whomsoever  the  Son  will 
reveal  Him.”  He  never  makes  the  demonstration 
of  the  existence  of  God  any  part  of  His  vocation  ; 
although  many  occupants  of  Christian  pulpits  and 
chairs  have  won  great  renown  by  such  evidences.  On 
the  contrary,  He  assumed  that  the  organ  by  which 
God  is  apprehended  is  different  from  intellect,  when 
He  said  :  “  Blessed  are  the  pure  in  heart,  for  they 
shall  see  their  God  ”  ;  and  He  confirmed  the  im¬ 
pression  that,  according  to  His  view,  the  knowledge 
of  God  is  peculiarly  the  perquisite  of  the  simple 
and  the  pure,  when  He  said :  “  I  thank  Thee,  O 
Father,  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth,  because  Thou 
hast  hid  these  things  from  the  wise  and  prudent,  and 
hast  revealed  them  unto  babes.” 

Secondly,  the  God  of  Jesus  is  the  God  of  nature. 
Of  course  in  this  He  was  not  original  ;  but  His 
exhibition  of  God  in  this  light  was  singularly  at¬ 
tractive.  While  philosophers  jangle  about  the  process 
by  which  the  knowledge  of  God  is  attainable,  if  He 
can  be  known  at  all,  the  common  man  has  in  all 


THE  LOVE  OF  GOD 


251 

ages  been  satisfied  with  the  testimony  borne  to  an 
Almighty  Hand  by  the  spectacle  of  the  actual  world. 
That  the  picture  of  glory  spread  out  before  his  eyes 
in  heaven  and  earth  has  had  no  painter  is  to  him 
incredible.  That  the  gigantic  machine  of  the  universe, 
working  so  smoothly  and  uniformly,  of  which  every 
part  is  so  nicely  balanced,  has  had  no  contriver 
seems  to  him  absurd.  Lord  Bacon  uttered  the  senti¬ 
ment  of  the  common  heart  grandly,  when  he  said, 
“  I  had  rather  believe  all  the  fables  in  the  Legend 
and  the  Talmud  and  the  Alcoran  than  that  this 
universal  frame  is  without  a  mind.”  This  was  the 
sentiment  of  Jesus  ;  only  it  was  more  with  the  eye 
of  the  poet  than  of  the  logician  that  He  looked  on 
nature.  His  delight  in  natural  beauty  was  deep  and 
rejoicing  ;  to  His  mind  the  energy  which  pervades 
nature,  working  out  its  ceaseless  changes  and  de¬ 
veloping  its  beauties,  was  nothing  else  than  the  in¬ 
telligent  and  loving  care  of  God.  We  may  suppose 
Jesus,  especially  in  the  days  of  His  youth  and 
amid  the  rural  scenery  of  Nazareth,  to  have  enjoyed 
a  profound  felicity  in  communion  with  the  sights  and 
sounds  of  the  changing  aspects  of  the  beautiful 
country  of  which  He  was  a  child  ;  and  it  was  out 
of  deep  wells  of  observation  and  experience  that 
He  was  able  to  dispense  the  wisdom  thus  accumu¬ 
lated  when  He  began  to  preach.  He  opened  the  eyes 
of  His  hearers  to  the  vision  He  had  Himself  seen  ; 
and  the  lesson  which  He  deduced  from  the  aspects 


252 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


of  nature  was  one  of  childlike  and  perfect  faith  in 
Providence.  With  what  a  pomp  of  glorious  words 
He  described  the  beauty  of  the  flowers  of  the  field  ! 
and  the  conclusion  he  drew  from  it  was  this  :  “  If 
God  so  clothe  the  grass  of  the  field,  which  to-day 
is  and  to-morrow  is  cast  into  the  oven,  shall  He  not 
much  more  clothe  you,  O  ye  of  little  faith  ?  ”  In 
like  manner  He  described  the  feeding  of  the  fowls 
of  the  air,  and  then  added  :  “  Are  not  ye  much  better 
than  they?”  Such  was  the  optimistic  faith  of  Jesus, 
which  dropped  like  dew  from  heaven  on  the  hearts 
of  His  hearers,  enabling  the  sons  and  daughters  of 
toil  to  lift  up  their  heads  and  recognise  in  the  sights 
and  sounds  around  them  the  self-revelation  of  a 
wisdom  and  goodness  immeasurable. 

Thus  did  He  teach  the  lesson  of  trust  and  cheer¬ 
fulness.  In  nature,  however,  there  are  not  only 
sunny  skies  and  golden  crops,  but  storms,  earthquakes, 
pestilences,  and  many  other  forms  of  calamity.  Of 
a  hundred  seeds  only  one  comes  to  fruitage ;  in  the 
depths  of  the  forest  and  in  the  depths  of  the  ocean 
the  large  and  the  strong  creatures  prey  on  the  small 
and  the  weak  ;  on  a  winter’s  day  the  birds  lie  dead 
by  every  hedgerow  ;  so  that  it  is  possible  to  represent 
nature  as  a  kind  of  shambles  or  field  of  battle, 
reeking  with  the  gore  of  never-ceasing  slaughter. 
Still  darker  are  the  shadows  in  human  existence, 
the  cries  of  misery  being  sometimes  so  loud  and 
piercing  that  it  is  little  wonder  if  sensitive  hearts 


THE  LOVE  OF  GOD 


253 


question  whether  there  can  really  be  a  divine  mind 
that  sees  and  knows.  The  view  taken  of  such  things 
by  Jesus  appears  to  have  been  that  we  know  enough 
of  the  bright  side  to  be  able  to  trust  God  with  the 
dark  one.  The  sparrow  falls ;  but  God  is  by,  and 
sees  it  when  it  falls.  This  is  enough.  Jesus  refused 
to  subscribe  to  the  ancient  opinion,  with  which  Job 
had  been  tortured,  that  calamity  must  necessarily 
be  the  punishment  of  special  sins.  The  eighteen  on 
whom  the  tower  in  Siloam  fell  had  not  been  sinners 
above  all  who  dwelt  at  Jerusalem,  although  they  had 
suffered  such  things  ;  their  fate  had,  indeed,  been 
obscure ;  but  there  is  a  day  of  revelation  coming 
when  all  such  mysteries  shall  be  unsealed.  Why 
does  the  Pharisee,  offering  up  in  public  his  hypo¬ 
critical  prayers,  receive  the  praise  of  the  world  and 
the  good  things  of  this  life,  whereas  the  saint,  praying 
in  obscurity,  attracts  no  notice?  “Your  Father,” 
answers  Jesus,  “who  seeth  in  secret,  Himself  will 
reward  him  openly.”  “  There  are  first  which  shall 
be  last,  and  the  last  first.”  The  calamities  of  His 
own  life  far  exceeded  the  common  lot  in  their  mystery 
and  bewilderment ;  and  so  far  did  He  succumb  as 
for  a  moment  to  cry  out,  on  the  cross,  that  His  God 
had  forsaken  Him  ;  but  the  cloud  passed,  and  He 
died  with  the  serene  accents  of  faith  on  His  lips : 
“  Father,  into  Thy  hands  I  commend  My  spirit.” 

Thirdly,  the  God  of  Jesus  is  the  God  of  history  and 
of  Scripture.  The  attempt  has  sometimes  been  made 


254 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


to  represent  Jesus  as  a  cosmopolitan,  to  whom  nothing 
human  was  alien  but  to  whom  everything  local  and 
national  was  indifferent,  if  not  despicable.  But  this 
is  a  notion  caught  out  of  the  air  and  bearing  no 
relation  to  facts.  Not  only  did  others  call  Him  the 
Son  of  David,  but  He  Himself  betrayed  in  many 
ways  His  identification  with  the  seed  of  Abraham. 
One  of  His  favourite  names  for  God  was  the  God  of 
Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob.  He  wept  over  Jerusalem 
with  the  ardour  of  a  patriot.  He  gave  as  a  reason 
for  having  compassion  on  a  woman  that  she  was  a 
daughter  of  Abraham  ;  and  He  brought  salvation  to 
the  house  of  Zacchaeus  avowedly  on  the  ground  that 
he  was  a  son  of  Abraham.  So  imbued  was  He  with 
the  literature  of  the  Old  Testament  that  He  thought 
in  its  imagery  and  spoke  in  its  nomenclature.  He 
identified  His  own  work  with  that  of  the  prophets, 
of  which  it  was  the  continuation  and  fulfilment  ;  and 
the  names  of  the  heroes  and  the  heroines  of  Hebrew 
history  were  familiar  in  His  mouth  as  household 
words.  All  attempts,  in  short,  to  establish  an 
antagonism  between  the  God  of  the  Old  Testament 
and  the  God  of  Jesus  Christ  may  without  hesitation 
be  pronounced  at  variance  with  the  spirit  of  the 
Great  Teacher.  To  Him  all  the  stages  of  revelation 
preceding  His  own — not  only  the  God  of  Abraham, 
Isaac  and  Jacob,  but  the  Jehovah  of  Moses,  the  Lord 
of  Hosts  of  Joshua,  the  Holy  One  of  Israel  of  Isaiah, 
and  whatever  other  designations  for  the  object  of 


THE  LOVE  OF  GOD 


255 


human  reverence  had  been  produced  in  the  past — were 
welcome  and  venerable  ;  and  He  did  not  supersede 
or  satirise  or  oppose  them,  as  has  too  frequently 
been  done  in  His  name,  but  cherished  them  all. 

Fourthly,  the  God  of  Jesus  was  the  heavenly 
Father.  “  My  Father  ”  He  habitually  called  Him  ; 
“your  Father”  He  denominated  Him  when  speaking 
to  others  ;  and  He  taught  them  to  pray  to  Him  as 
“  our  Father.” 

Not  only  is  the  application  of  the  title  Father  to 
the  Deity  not  confined  to  the  New  Testament,  but 
it  is  not  even  limited  to  Holy  Writ,  it  being  no 
unusual  occurrence  in  heathen  poetry  to  address  the 
Supreme  Being  as  the  Father  of  gods  and  men.  In 
the  Old  Testament,  of  course,  the  application  to  God 
of  this  name  is  common  enough ;  but  the  difference, 
it  is  said,  is,  that  in  the  Old  Testament  God  is  the 
Father  of  the  nation,  whereas  in  the  New  He  is  the 
Father  of  the  individual  ;  and,  speaking  broadly,  we 
may  recognise  this  distinction  as  correct.  Yet  in  the 
Old  Testament  a  tendency  is  already  discernible  to 
apply  the  term  to  the  relationship  of  God  to  the 
individual ;  as  when,  for  instance,  in  Psalm  ciii.,  it 
is  said,  “  Like  as  a  father  pitieth  his  children,  so  the 
Lord  pitieth  them  that  fear  Him  ;  for  He  knoweth 
our  frame,  He  remembereth  that  we  are  dust.”  And 
in  the  Old  Testament  Apocrypha  we  find  the  transi¬ 
tion  already  completed.  Thus,  in  Ecclesiasticus,*  the 

*  xxiii.  i,  4. 


256 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


author  addresses  God  as  the  Father  and  Master  of 
his  life  ;  and  in  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon  *  the  wicked 
accuse  the  godly  man  of  boasting  that  God  is  his 
Father,  f  It  may  be  assumed  that,  before  the 
teaching  of  Jesus  began  to  tell,  His  countrymen 
occasionally  spoke  of  God  as  their  Father  not  only 
in  their  collective  but  in  their  individual  capacity. 
But  Jesus  made  the  practice  current  and  universal. 
And  there  was  another  great  difference :  if  the 
individual  Israelite  ventured  to  call  God  his  Father, 
it  was  in  the  consciousness  of  being  himself  a  portion 
of  Israel ;  he  never  thought  of  sonship  as  extending 
beyond  the  bounds  of  the  holy  nation.  But  in  the 
teaching  of  Jesus  this  distinction  disappeared,  every 
human  being  who  chooses  being  entitled  to  call  God 
by  this  name. 

The  question  has,  indeed,  been  raised  whether,  in 
the  teaching  of  Jesus,  God  is  the  Father  of  all  men 
as  such,  or  only  of  those  men  and  women  who  have 
been  brought  into  a  new  relationship  to  Him  through 
Christ.  The  latter  alternative  has  been  maintained 
by  theologians — that  there  is  no  fatherhood  of  God 
to  any  except  such  as  have  been  reconciled  to  Him 
in  Christ.  But  this  view  seems  to  be  decisively  set 
aside  by  the  parable  of  the  Prodigal  Son.  Whatever 
estimate  be  made  of  the  Prodigal  in  the  far  country, 
he  certainly  does  not  stand  for  those  who  have 

*  ii.  16. 

t  Compare  Dalman,  Die  Worte  Jesu ,  i  6. 


THE  LOVE  OF  GOD 


257 


been  reconciled  to  God  through  Christ;  but  just  as 
certainly  he  is  still  a  son.  His  father  has  not  for¬ 
gotten  or  disowned  him  but,  on  the  contrary,  is  more 
tenderly  and  keenly  conscious  of  His  relationship 
to  him  because  he  is  lost.  The  very  point  of  the 
parable  lies  in  the  fact  that  the  lostness  of  the  son, 
so  far  from  annihilating  the  relationship,  makes  the 
father  more  conscious  of  it  than  ever :  his  lost  son 
being  far  more  in  his  thoughts  than  the  one  who 
has  never  been  lost.  This  certainly  is  one  of  the 
brightest  and  most  attractive  features  of  the  divine 
fatherhood  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  and  it  must 
not  be  sacrificed  in  deference  to  any  theological 
prepossession.  Nevertheless,  we  are  warned  against 
dogmatizing  in  the  opposite  direction  by  the  fact 
that  Jesus  not  infrequently  speaks  of  divine  sonship 
as  something  to  be  only  gradually  attained  even  by 
those  who  are  His  own  disciples.  Thus,  these  are 
told  by  Him  to  love  their  enemies,  that  they  may 
be — or  rather  that  they  may  become  * — the  sons  of 
their  Father  who  is  in  heaven,  who  maketh  His  sun 
to  shine  on  the  evil  and  on  the  good,  and  sendeth 
rain  on  the  just  and  on  the  unjust.  Sonship  here  is 
a  matter  not  of  natural  relationship,  but  of  moral 
attainment,  and  its  development  is  gradual.  Still 
more  significant  is  the  statement  that  no  man 
knoweth  the  Father  save  the  Son,  and  those  to  whom 
the  Son  will  reveal  Him — where  it  seems  to  be 

*  OTTCOS /  VT)(j6c. 


17 


258 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


claimed  that  the  power  of  calling  God  Father  belongs 
to  those  alone  who  have  learned  it  from  Christ. 
And,  although  it  is  difficult,  in  reading  our  Lord’s 
sayings,  as  they  have  come  down  to  us,  to  determine 
always  whether,  when  speaking  to  His  hearers  of 
their  heavenly  Father,  He  was  addressing  the  narrow 
circle  of  the  disciples  or  the  wider  one  of  the  mul¬ 
titude,  yet,  on  the  whole,  the  impression  produced 
is  that  usually,  when  speaking  of  God  as  Father, 
He  was  addressing  those  who  had  learned  from 
Himself.  At  all  events  it  is  manifest  that,  the  wider 
the  extension  of  the  divine  fatherhood,  the  less  deep 
must  be  its  intention  :  that  is  to  say,  if  He  is  the 
Father  of  all,  His  fatherhood  means  less  to  each  of 
them  than  if  He  is  the  Father  of  those  only  who 
cherish  towards  Him  filial  affection  and  resemble 
Him  in  character.  But  there  is  nothing  in  what  we 
know  of  Jesus  as  a  teacher  to  make  us  think  that 
He  might  not  have  employed  the  term  sometimes  in 
the  one  sense  and  sometimes  in  the  other.  Jesus  made 
the  name  of  Father  current  coin,  making  offer  of  it  to 
every  human  being  and  breaking  down  the  monopoly 
of  the  Jew  ;  but  the  new  revelation  of  the  character  of 
God,  by  which  love  is  to  be  made  easy,  does  not  con¬ 
sist  merely  in  the  use  of  this  name,  but  rather  in  the 
consciousness  of  what,  as  Father,  He  has  done  and 
is  prepared  to  do  for  those  who  are  His  children.! 

t  “Mit  Recht  bemerkt  O.  Holtzmann,  dass  der  Gottvaterglaube 
uns  nirgends  in  der  Lehre  Jesu  im  Gegentatz  gegen  einen 


THE  LOVE  OF  GOD 


259 


By  modern  theologians  it  is  usually  taken  for 
granted  that  the  fatherhood  of  God,  being  so 
prominent  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  must  be  the 
ultimate  expression  for  the  divine  love.  At  an  earlier 
stage  of  revelation,  the  relation  of  Jehovah  to  Israel 
was  represented  under  a  different  figure  of  speech — 
that  of  husband  and  wife — which  is  to  be  found  in 
many  parts  of  the  Old  Testament,  but  culminates  in 
the  prophet  Hosea.  Both  the  one  representation 
and  the  other  are  tender  and  significant,  yet  they 
differ  widely  from  each  other,  fatherhood  being  more 
absolutely  natural  and  more  enduring,  whereas  the 
other  relationship  has  in  it  more  of  choice  and  was 

anderen  Gottesgedanken  scharf  ausgestaltet  entgegentrete,  und 
dass  er  iiberhaupt  dem  Judenthum  gegeniiber  nichts  Neues  war. 
Dieser  letzteren  Behauptung  konnte  man  entgegenhalten,  dass 
die  Beziehung  der  Vaterliebe  Gottes  auf  den  einzelnen  Menschen 
doch  neu  ist.  Allein  wir  vernehmen  nicht,  dass  Jesus  in  dieser 
Beziehung  einen  Unterschied  zwischen  seiner  Weise  den  Vater 
zu  verkiindigen  und  der  alttestamentlichen  hervorgehoben  hatte, 
oder  dass  seine  Zuhorer  sich  veranlasst  gefiihlt  hatten,  es  zu 
thun.  Nicht  hier  liegt  die  eigentliche  Originalitat  der  Gott- 
vaterverkiindigung  Jesu.  Sie  liegt  vielmehr  darin,  dass  durch 
die  ganze  Predigt  Jesu  sich  der  Hinweis  darauf  hindurchzieht, 
wie  fern  der  Mensch  an  und  fur  sich  davon  ist,  das  Wesen 
Gottes  als  seines  Vaters  zu  verstehen,  und  wie  sehr  er  es 
bedarf,  dass  ihm  das  Geheimniss  desselben  erschlossen  werde. 
Deutlich  ausgesprochen  ist  dies  Matt.  xi.  27  .  .  .  Hier  handelt 
es  sich  zunachst  nur  darum,  festzustellen,  dass  wenn  Jesus  Gott 
seinen  und  der  Seinigen  Vater  nennt,  er  damit  auf  eine  innere, 
geheimnissvolle,  zunachst  ihm  und  durch  ihn  den  Seinigen 
gewordene  Offenbarung  zuriickweist.” — Ehrhardt,  Der  Grund - 
char ak ter  der  Ethik  Jesu,  pp.  78,  79. 


26o 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


looked  upon  as  dissoluble.  It  was  of  no  small 
consequence  that,  in  the  earliest  times,  the  relation 
of  Jehovah  to  His  people  was  considered  not  as 
simply  natural,  but  as  positive  and  morally  con¬ 
ditioned.  The  deities  of  the  surrounding  peoples  were 
bound  to  stand  by  their  worshippers,  assisting  them 
in  war,  for  instance,  under  all  circumstances  ;  Jehovah, 
on  the  contrary,  might,  for  moral  reasons,  withdraw 
His  support  at  any  time,  if  obedience  failed  on  the 
part  of  His  worshippers.  The  covenant  was  broken, 
and  obligation  ceased.  This  idea  was  at  the  back  of 
all  the  discipline  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  it 
educated  Israel  into  ethical  monotheism.  Yet  the 
principle  might  be  misunderstood,  and  it  was  grossly 
perverted  when  the  Pharisees,  confident  in  the 
security  of  their  own  relation  to  Jehovah,  looked 
down  upon  the  publicans  and  sinners,  not  to  speak 
of  the  Samaritans  and  the  Gentiles,  as  being  outside 
the  covenant  and,  therefore,  without  a  share  in  the 
care  of  the  divine  heart.  It  was  against  this  dark 
background  that  Jesus  proclaimed  the  fatherly  love 
of  God — a  love  which  embraces  all  without  dis¬ 
tinction  and  cannot  be  dissolved  by  the  ill-doing  of 
its  objects.  Nothing,  however,  is  more  certain  than 
that  this  aspect  of  the  divine  love  is  no  less  capable 
of  misrepresentation  than  the  other.  If  the  old 
prophetic  view  of  God  proved  capable  of  being 
construed  into  Pharisaic  arrogance  and  contempt,  the 
New  Testament  conception  can  be  perverted  into 


THE  LOVE  OF  GOD 


261 

Sadducean  laxity.  It  is  probable  that  both  views 
are  requisite  to  convey  a  complete  conception  of  the 
divine  love ;  and  that  the  older  view  is  not  antiquated 
is  suggested  by  the  fact  that  it  recurs  not  only  in  the 
Bride,  the  Lambs  wife,  of  the  Book  of  Revelation, 
and  in  St.  Paul’s  remarkable  comparison,  in  Ephe¬ 
sians,  of  the  union  of  Christ  and  the  Church  with 
that  of  husband  and  wife,  but  in  our  Lord’s  own 
appellation  of  Himself  as  the  Bridegroom,  and  in  the 
parable  of  the  King  who  made  a  Marriage  for  his 
Son.  Which  of  the  two  human  relationships  is  the 
better  fitted  to  bring  out  the  depth  and  mystery  of 
the  love  of  God  to  men,  everyone  may  be  left  to 
decide  for  himself,* 

Whether  or  not,  however,  fatherhood  be  the  cul¬ 
minating  expression  in  revelation  for  the  love  of  God, 
the  name  of  heavenly  Father  irradiates  the  teaching 
of  Jesus,  and  has  supplied  to  the  human  imagination 
a  plastic  and  fecund  image,  from  which  thoughts  of 
the  Deity,  just  and  attractive,  have  been  evolved. 
Jesus  gave  to  His  own  conception  of  what  human 
fatherhood  may  be  peerless  expression  in  the  figure 
of  the  father  in  the  parable  of  the  Prodigal  Son  ;  for 
this  is  no  ordinary  father,  but  one  clothed  with 
resources,  dignity  and  wisdom,  and,  above  all, 
invested  with  the  magnanimity  of  forgiveness.  It 
suggests  the  sublime  thought  of  St.  Paul,  that  it  is 


*  This  thought  is  more  fully  worked  out  in  the  third  of  three 
Lectures  on  the  Atonement  published  by  the  author  a  year  ago. 


262 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


not  human  fatherhood  which  enables  us  to  compre¬ 
hend  divine  fatherhood,  but  rather  the  fatherhood  of 
God  that  begets  and  shapes  the  fatherhood  of  man.* 
And  this  may  suggest  the  further  reflection  that,  not 
only  do  all  pure  forms  of  earthly  love  point  upwards 
to  features  of  the  divine  love,  but  that  in  the  Divine 
Being  there  is  something  great  and  incomprehensible 
from  which  all  these  earthly  fires  have  been  kindled, 
and  which  is  expressed  in  the  final  testimony  of 
revelation  that  “  God  is  love.” 


*  Eph.  iii.  15,  “The  Father  from  whom  every  fatherhood 
[R.V.  marg.~\  in  heaven  and  on  earth  is  named. ,} 


THE  THINGS  OF  GOD 


Matthew  xii.  1-8,  9-13  ;  xxiv.  20. 

Mark  i.  21  ;  ii.  23-28  ;  iii.  1-6  ;  vi.  2  ;  xvi.  9. 

Luke  iv.  16,  31  ;  vi.  1-11  ;  xiii.  10-17  ;  xiv.  1-6. 

Matthew  iv.  4,  7,  10  ;  v.  12,  17-19,  21-48 ;  vi.  29  ;  vii.  12 ;  viii.  4,  11  ; 

ix.  13  ;  x.  10;  xi.  10,  U,  14  5  xii.  3-7,  37-42  ;  xiii.  14-17;  xv. 

3-9;  xvii.  11,  12;  xix.  3-9;  xxi.  13,  16,  42;  xxii.  29-32,  34-46; 
xxiii.  2,  3,  29-32,  35-37  ;  xxiv.  15,  37-39;  xxvi.  24,  31,  54. 

Mark  ii.  23-28;  vi.  13;  ix.  12,  13  ;  x.  2-12  ;  xii.  18-27;  xiii.  14  ;  xiv. 
2i>  27,  49* 

Luke  iv.  4,  8,  12 ;  vi.  3,  4,  23,  26  ;  vii.  27,  28  ;  x.  24  ;  xi.  28-32,  47- 
52;  xiii.  28,  34  ;  xvi.  16,  17,  22,  31  ;  xvii.  26-29,  32  ;  xviii.  20  ; 
xix.  9 ;  xx.  37,  41-44  ;  xxi.  22  ;  xxii.  37  ;  xxiv.  25-27,  44-46. 

Matthew  v.  44;  vi.  5-15  ;  vii.  7-11  ;  ix.  37,  38;  xvii.  21  ;  xviii.  19, 

20  ;  xxi.  22  ;  xxiii.  14  ;  xxiv.  20;  xxvi.  36-46,  53. 

Mark  i.  35 ;  vi.  41,  46  ;  viii.  6,  7  ;  ix.  29  ;  x.  16  ;  xx.  17,  24,  25  ;  xii. 

40  ;  xiii.  18,  33  ;  xiv.  22,  23,  32-42. 

Luke  iii.  21  ;  v.  16 ;  vi.  12,  28;  ix.  16,  18,  28,  29;  x.  2;  xi.  1-13 ; 
xviii.  1 -14;  xix.  46;  xx.  47  ;  xxi.  36;  xxii.  32,  39-46;  xxiii.  34, 
46 ;  xxiv.  30,  50,  51. 

Matthew  xvi.  18,  19  ;  xviii.  15-20;  xxii.  21  ;  xxvi.  26-30. 

Mark  i.  21,  23,  39  ;  ii.  18-28;  iii.  1-5;  v.  38  ;  vi.  2;  xi.  1 1,  15-17,  27; 

xii.  39,  41-44 ;  xiii.  1,  2,  3,  9,  14  ;  xiv.  12-16,  49,  58  ;  xv.  38. 

Luke  ii.  49  ;  iv.  8,  15,  18,  33  ;  v.  14,  33-39;  vi.  4,  6 ;  x.  31,  32;  xi. 

37-54;  xii.  11 ;  xiii.  10;  xviii.  10;  xix.  45-47;  x«*  5>  6>  7’20»  37» 
38,  53- 


CHAPTER  XII. 


THE  THINGS  OF  GOD 


OT  only  does  Jesus  demand  for  God  the 


1  M  strongest  affection  of  the  heart,  but,  accord¬ 
ing  to  His  teaching,  this  internal  state  of  mind  has 
a  bearing  on  what  may  be  called  the  things  of 
God,*  such  as  public  worship,  the  Bible,  the  Sabbath, 
prayer,  and  the  like. 

It  has  sometimes  been  contended  that  between  the 
internal  sentiment  of  religion,  the  most  emphatic  name 
for  which  is  the  love  of  God,  and  the  external  practice 
of  religion  there  is  no  necessary  connection.  There 
are  countries,  for  example,  where  the  habitual  neglect 
of  the  house  of  God  is  not  considered  inconsistent 
with  a  profession  of  Christianity.  It  has  even  been 
contended  that  the  religion  of  the  heart  and  the 
religion  of  outward  ceremonies  have  always  been 
opposed  to  each  other.  A  true  revival  always  drives 
those  influenced  by  it  inwards,  to  the  cultivation 
of  a  secret  life  of  communion  with  God  ;  but,  by 


*  This  phrase  is  His  own :  “  Thou  savourest  not  the  things 
that  be  of  God,”  r a  tov  Oeov ;  “Render  unto  God  the  things  that 
are  God’s,”  ra  tov  Oeov. 


266 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


degrees,  this  spiritual  tendency  is  captured  by  the 
manipulators  of  ecclesiastical  machinery,  who  exploit 
it  for  their  own  interests — that  is,  in  the  interest  of 
churches,  Sundays  and  liturgies.  In  one  generation 
there  is  a  period  of  the  spirit,  when  the  religious 
nature  of  many  is  awakened  and  they  experience  an 
inner  walk  with  God,  which  both  secures  their  secret 
felicity  and  influences  their  outward  behaviour  as 
members  of  society ;  but,  in  the  next  generation,  the 
children  or  the  grandchildren  of  these  persons, 
growing  up  in  the  pious  habits  transmitted  from  their 
fathers  but  not  having  experienced  any  deep  religious 
change  of  their  own,  must,  if  they  are  to  be  kept  in 
connection  and  attachment  with  religion,  be  gratified 
with  orderly  and  beautiful  forms,  which  appeal  to 
the  aesthetic  sensibilities. 

Of  the  truth  of  this  opposition,  it  may  be  said, 
there  could  be  no  more  glaring  example  than  that  of 
Jesus  Himself.  His  was  a  religion  of  the  heart;  but 
He  was  surrounded  by  a  generation  absorbed  in 
religious  rites  and  forms ;  and  so  violent  was  the 
collision  between  the  opposite  tendencies  that  He 
perished  in  the  attempt  to  counteract  the  prevailing 
practices.  In  Palestine,  in  His  day,  there  existed 
two  great  centres  of  religion — the  temple  and  the 
synagogue.  The  former  was  the  more  ancient ;  with 
it  were  associated  the  grand  names  and  many  of  the 
most  thrilling  events  of  the  national  history ;  its  form 
of  worship  was  sacrifice,  which  was  centralised  in 


THE  THINGS  OF  GOD 


267 


Jerusalem  and  Mount  Zion.  The  synagogue  was  a 
later  development ;  it  was  localised  in  every  town 
and  hamlet  in  the  country ;  its  services  were  far  less 
gorgeous  than  those  of  the  temple,  but  they  appealed 
more  directly  to  the  intellect  and  more  immediately 
affected  the  life.  The  heads  of  the  temple  worship 
were  the  high-priests,  who  formed  the  strength  of 
the  Sadducean  party ;  those  of  the  synagogue  were 
the  scribes,  who  belonged  mainly  to  the  party  of  the 
Pharisees.  But  both  high-priests  and  scribes  were 
bitter  opponents  of  Christ.  The  enmity  of  the  latter 
was  the  first  to  manifest  itself ;  in  every  district  of 
the  country  in  which  He  appeared  the  local  heads 
of  the  synagogues  being  His  uncompromising  oppo¬ 
nents.  He  Himself  began  early  to  answer  scorn  with 
scorn  ;  and,  at  length,  He  emptied  all  the  vials  of  His 
prophetic  wrath  on  the  heads  of  scribes  and  Pharisees. 
Against  the  Sadducees  He  did  not  direct  His  philip¬ 
pics  nearly  so  frequently  ;  but  it  was  by  the  high- 
priesthood  that  He  was  put  to  death,  this  authority 
being  at  the  time  the  seat  of  judicial  power ;  and, 
if,  during  His  lifetime,  the  Sadducees  were  less 
prominent  than  the  Pharisees  in  opposing  Him,  the 
situation  was  reversed  after  His  death,  when  the 
persecution  of  the  Early  Church  proceeded  principally 
from  this  party. 

From  the  recorded  sayings  of  Jesus  there  might  be 
collected  an  entire  artillery  of  weapons  with  which  to 
assail  the  forms  and  functionaries  of  public  religion ; 


268 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


and  His  whole  life  might  be  written  as  that  of  an 
enemy  of  rabbinism  and  ecclesiasticism.  Indeed, 
there  is  enough  of  truth  in  such  a  representation  to 
give  serious  pause  to  those  who  either  are  themselves 
teachers  of  the  doctrine  and  conductors  of  the  worship 
of  the  Church  or  who  have  the  prospect  before  them 
of  becoming  such.  I  should  not  think  much  of  the 
man  charged  with  these  duties  who,  in  reading  the 
Gospels,  was  not  sometimes  pulled  up  by  the  question 
whether,  if  he  had  lived  in  the  days  of  which  he  is 
reading,  he  might  not  have  been  found  among  the 
upholders  of  tradition  and  the  enemies  of  the  Re¬ 
former  who  was  setting  at  defiance  so  many  of  the 
current  opinions  and  practices. 

In  spite,  however,  of  all  these  facts,  Jesus  was  not 
an  enemy  of  public  religion.  On  His  trial  He  was 
accused  of  saying,  “  I  will  destroy  this  temple  made 
with  hands,  and  within  three  days  I  will  build 
another  made  without  hands  ” ;  and,  although  the 
testimony  of  the  witnesses  brought  in  support  of 
the  statement  did  not  agree  together,  the  probability 
is  that  it  was  so  far  true  as  to  indicate  that  He  had 
predicted  the  passing  away  of  the  worship  of  the 
temple ;  but  He  did  so  only  on  the  assumption  that 
He  was  to  put  another  form  of  public  worship  in  its 
place.  In  the  same  way,  although  He  attacked  the 
rabbis  with  unsparing  severity,  yet  He  foretold  that 
He  was  Himself  to  send  forth  into  the  world  rabbis 
of  a  different  description  :  “  Behold,  I  send  unto  you,” 


THE  THINGS  OF  GOD 


269 


were  His  words,  “  prophets  and  wise  men  and  scribes,” 
Matt,  xxiii.  34.  Thus  He  assumes  that  the  worship 
in  which  these  functionaries  had  assisted  must  go  on, 
with  only  the  difference  that  it  was  to  be  modified  in 
accordance  with  the  spirit  of  His  Gospel. 

That  which  He  utterly  repudiated  in  the  worship 
of  the  time  was  the  notion  that  ritual  has  an  inde¬ 
pendent  value  apart  from  the  character  and  the  profit 
of  the  worshipper.  Worship  was  supposed  to  be  a 
tribute  which  gratified  God  and  accumulated,  in  His 
hands,  merits  credited  to  the  worshipper  which  would 
be  awarded  when  the  proper  time  came.  So  far  had 
this  gone  that  ritual  was  actually  made  use  of  to 
compound  for  the  neglect  of  the  most  obvious  moral 
duties,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Corban,  by  which  children 
relieved  themselves  from  the  duty  of  sustaining  their 
parents  through  making  a  payment  to  the  ecclesiastical 
treasury.  Jesus  accuses  His  contemporaries  of  thus 
making  void  the  law  by  their  traditions.  “  And 
many  like  things,”  He  added,  “  ye  do.”  In  all  ages 
this  has  been  the  error  of  ecclesiastical  life — the  idea 
that  worship  is  intended  for  the  gratification  of  the 
Deity,  instead  of  the  benefit  of  the  worshipper.  The 
service,  on  the  contrary,  with  which  God  is  well 
pleased  is  the  doing  of  His  will  ;  and  this  consists  not 
in  the  performance  of  ritual  but  in  the  growth  of 
character.  More  than  once  He  quoted  the  Old 
Testament  maxim,  “  I  will  have  mercy  and  not 
sacrifice  ”  ;  and  He  stated  the  principle  broadly  in 


270 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


the  great  saying :  “  Woe  unto  you,  scribes  and 
Pharisees,  hypocrites ;  for  ye  pay  tithe  of  mint  and 
anise  and  cummin,  and  have  omitted  the  weightier 
matters  of  the  law,  judgment,  mercy  and  faith  ;  these 
ought  ye  to  have  done  and  not  to  leave  the  other 
undone.”  Here,  in  the  three  words  “judgment, 
mercy  and  faith,”  we  have  a  summary  of  those  things 
with  which  God  is  well  pleased  and  for  the  produc¬ 
tion  of  which  all  worship  ought  to  be  carried  out  ; 
“  mint  and  anise  and  cummin  ”  having  become  pro¬ 
verbial  to  denote  the  mere  outside  and  ceremonial  of 
worship.  Yet  it  is  noteworthy  that  Jesus  does  not 
altogether  ignore  or  undervalue  even  the  latter  ;  for 
He  says,  Ye  ought  to  have  done  the  great  things 
and  not  to  have  left  the  small  things  undone.  What 
He  desiderated  was  proportion  and  measure :  He  did 
not  condemn  ritual,  but  wished  it  to  be  relegated  to 
its  proper  place. 

The  portion  of  the  things  of  God,  as  these  existed 
in  His  time  and  country,  to  which  He  appeared  to 
take  up  the  most  uncompromising  attitude  of  opposi¬ 
tion  was  the  Sabbath.  Again  and  again  did  He 
come  into  the  sharpest  collision  on  this  subject  with 
the  ecclesiastical  authorities  ;  and  so  completely  did 
He  separate  Himself  from  their  traditional  mode  of 
reverencing  the  day  that  it  has  not  infrequently  been 
inferred  that  His  intention  was  to  abolish  the  institu 
tion  altogether.  Even  Luther  made  this  mistake  and 


THE  THINGS  OF  GOD 


271 


embodied  it  in  the  Augsburg  Confession  ;  and  the 
Reformers  generally,  in  their  zeal  for  abolishing  the 
Saints’  Days  and  other  festivals  with  which 
the  Church  of  Rome  had  over-burdened  the  Christian 
community,  did  not  clearly  distinguish  between  the 
authority  by  which  these  were  sanctioned  and  that 
by  which  the  Sabbath  is  supported.  It  was  in 
Puritan  England  that  it  was  first  clearly  perceived  in 
modern  times  *  that  the  Sabbath  rests  on  an  entirely 
different  footing  from  Saints’  Days,  and  that  it  is 
possible  by  abolishing  these  to  make  its  divine  right 
shine  out  more  conspicuously.  The  great  word  of 
Jesus  on  the  subject  is  :  “  The  Sabbath  was  made  for 
man,  and  not  man  for  the  Sabbath,”  which  is  certainly 
a  vindication  of  the  right  of  man  to  have  the 
observance  of  the  Sabbath  so  arranged  as  to  be  no 
yoke,  but  a  palpable  relief  and  benefit.  Nevertheless, 
the  first  part  of  the  statement  obviously  looks  back 
to  the  creation  of  man  at  the  beginning  and  implies  that 
the  necessity  for  a  Sabbath  is  rooted  in  the  human 
constitution  ;  so  that  it  must  last  as  long  as  man  is 
what  he  is.  Thus  the  Sabbath  holds  a  place  in  what 
may  be  called  the  law  of  creation.  To  this  primeval 
sanction  there  is  added  another  through  its  occurrence 

*  As  early,  however,  as  the  fourth  century  it  was  recognised 
that  the  Christian  Sunday  had  taken  the  place  of  the  Jewish 
Sabbath  and  rested  on  the  same  authority ;  and  this  was  the 
accepted  view  in  subsequent  centuries.  See  the  article  entitled 
Geschichte  des  Sonntags  vornehmlich  in  der  alten  Kirche  in 
Zahn’s  Skizzen. 


272 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


among  the  Ten  Commandments,  which  Jesus  ex¬ 
pressly  re-enacted.  This  second  authorisation  is  not 
disproved  by  the  fact  that  there  may  be  a  national 
and  temporary  element  in  the  form  in  which  it 
appears  in  the  Decalogue  ;  for  this  is  the  case  also 
with  others  of  the  commandments — the  fifth,  for  ex¬ 
ample — which  certainly  are  in  their  essence  eternal 
and  immutable.  The  Scottish  Church,  in  both  of  its 
great  sections,  has  been  tempted,  in  the  course  of  the 
last  half-century,  by  the  influence  of  great  and 
beloved  names,*  to  give  up  this  position  and  to  rest 
the  authority  of  the  Lord’s  Day  solely  on  the 
recognition  by  the  Christian  Church  of  what  is  due 
to  the  memory  of  her  Lord’s  resurrection  ;  but,  after 
mature  deliberation,  she  has  resolutely  declined  to  do 
so,  believing  herself  to  be  interpreting  her  Lord’s 
mind  aright  when  basing  the  observance  of  this  day 
on  the  threefold  authority  of  the  primeval  sanction, 
the  Decalogue  and  Christian  propriety. 

It  has  often  been  remarked  that  the  position  of  the 
Sabbath  in  the  Decalogue,  looking  back  to  the  com¬ 
mandments  respecting  the  things  of  God  and  forward 
to  those  respecting  the  things  of  man,  is  an  indication 
of  the  service  it  is  intended  to  render  as  the  guardian 
and  defence  of  both  classes  of  duties ;  and  certainly 
it  discharges  this  function,  at  any  rate,  to  what  we 
have  called  the  things  of  God  ;  because  the  chance 
which  all  of  these  have  of  receiving  the  attention 


*  Dr.  Norman  Macleod  and  Dr.  Walter  C.  Smith. 


THE  THINGS  OF  GOD 


273 


which  is  their  due  depends  on  mankind  having  time 
to  occupy  mind  and  heart  with  them* 

While,  however,  we  contend  that  it  would  not  be 
in  accordance  with  the  spirit  of  Jesus  to  abolish  an 
institution  so  essential  to  the  things  of  God,  it 
would  be  still  more  at  variance  with  His  sayings  on 
the  subject,  as  these  stand  under  our  eyes  in  the 
record,  not  to  confess  that  this  institution  is  liable  to 
be  turned  into  a  fetich,  round  which  a  conception  of 
religion  may  gather  which  is  not  that  of  the  Author 
of  Christianity  at  all ;  and  that  those  who  by  their 
teaching  or  practice  have  to  determine  the  modes  in 
which  the  day  is  observed  are  bound  to  see  that  it  is 
fitted  to  be  a  delight  and  not  a  weariness.  Its  hours 
and  its  exercises  may  be  treated  as  the  coins  in  which 
tribute  is  paid  to  the  Deity,  exactly  as  they  were  by 
scribes  and  Pharisees  ;  but  the  intention  of  Jesus  is 
that  out  of  the  sacred  hours  there  should  be  derived 
the  rest  and  the  strength  required  for  living  on  the 
other  days  of  the  week  a  life  of  “judgment,  mercy 
and  faith  ”  ;  and  this  is  what  He  meant  when  He 
said :  “  Therefore  the  Son  of  man  is  Lord  also  of  the 
Sabbath.”  Some  hold  this  saying  to  be  a  palmary 
instance  to  prove  that,  in  the  vocabulary  of  Jesus,  the 
phrase  “  the  Son  of  man  ”  means  simply  “  man  ”  ; 
because,  in  their  opinion,  the  natural  conclusion  from 
the  premises  is  that  “  man  ”  is  lord  of  the  Sabbath. 
But  Jesus  can  never  have  meant  to  say  that  “  man  ” 


*  Cf.  D.  M.  Ross,  The  Teaching  of  Jesus,  p.  173. 

18 


274 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


is  lord  of  the  Sabbath,  thus  submitting  the  sublime 
institution  to  the  arbitrament  of  his  taste  and  fancy. 
On  the  contrary,  it  may  be  seen  in  this  saying  how 
far  Jesus  was  conscious  of  standing  above  ordinary 
men,  and  yet  how  linked  He  felt  Himself  to  be  with 
humanity.  He  is  so  connected  with  all  men  as  to  be 
fit  to  be  the  mouthpiece  of  all  in  vindicating  their 
claim  to  a  gift  given  them  at  the  Creation  against  the 
encroachments  of  all  who,  under  whatever  pretence, 
would  deprive  them  of  their  birthright. 

If  Jesus  was  at  variance  with  the  traditional  worship 
in  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath,  there  were  two  of 
its  forms  with  which,  on  the  contrary,  He  was  in  the 
closest  sympathy  and  affinity. 

One  of  these  was  the  reading  of  Scripture.  The 
books  of  the  Old  Testament  had  been  divided  by 
the  scribes  into  well-arranged  lessons,  and  these  were 
read  regularly  in  public  worship  all  the  year  round. 
It  was  from  listening  to  these  lessons  that  Jesus 
acquired  His  matchless  knowledge  of  Holy  Writ. 
But  He  had  also  learned  Himself  to  read  the  sacred 
pages,  so  that  He  could  be  called  upon  to  read  these 
in  the  audience  of  the  people.  Whether  in  His  own 
home  there  may  have  been  any  portions  of  the 
rolls  we  do  not  know ;  perhaps  the  more  likely 
supposition  is  that  He  obtained  access  to  these 
treasures  by  ingratiating  Himself  with  the  keeper 
of  the  manuscripts  belonging  to  the  synagogue  of 


THE  THINGS  OF  GOD 


275 


Nazareth.  At  any  rate,  from  His  quotations,  which 
are  very  numerous,  we  can  assure  ourselves  that  He 
was  familiar  with  every  part  of  the  Scriptures.  Less 
remarkable,  however,  is  the  extent  of  His  knowledge 
than  the  depth  of  His  insight.  Rarely  does  He 
quote  a  text  without  unfolding  some  meaning  in  it 
which  could  only  have  disclosed  itself  to  one  brooding 
long  and  lovingly ;  and  He  would  reproach  even 
the  scribes  themselves  for  the  superficiality  of  their 
reading  of  the  sacred  documents  of  which  they  were 
the  official  custodians  by  introducing  His  interpre¬ 
tation  with  the  words,  “  Have  ye  never  read  ?  ”  or  “  Go 
and  learn  what  this  meaneth.” 

That  Jesus  attributed  to  the  Old  Testament  the 
very  highest  divine  authority  there  can  be  no 
question  whatever.  Through  it  He  conversed 
habitually  with  His  Father  in  Heaven  ;  and,  in  the 
most  trying  passages  of  His  own  life,  especially 
towards  the  end,  He  found,  to  His  comfort,  His 
pathway  clearly  indicated  in  prophecy  ;  so  that,  for 
example,  He  could  say  to  the  disciples  on  the  way  to 
Emmaus  :  “  O  fools,  and  slow  of  heart  to  believe  all 
that  the  prophets  have  written  ”  ;  “  and,  beginning  at 
Moses  and  all  the  prophets,  He  expounded  unto 
them  in  all  the  Scriptures  the  things  concerning 
Himself.”  On  the  other  hand,  when  a  precept  of 
Moses  was  quoted  against  Him,  He  did  not  hesitate 
to  say  :  “  For  the  hardness  of  your  hearts  Moses  gave 
you  this  law  ;  but  from  the  beginning  it  was  not  so”  ; 


276 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


and  then  He  proceeded,  by  adducing  the  Scriptural 
account  of  the  Creation,  to  correct  the  impression 
which  the  scribes  had  derived  from  the  reading  of  the 
words  of  Moses.  Thus,  if  the  Old  Testament  required 
amendment,  He  could  correct  it  out  of  itself.  In  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount  He  corrected  in  a  similar  way 
the  impressions  produced  by  other  precepts  of  the 
ancient  code,  only  in  these  cases  He  sets  His  own 
authority  more  directly  in  opposition  to  that  of  Moses. 

In  our  own  day  the  question  has  been  much  dis¬ 
cussed  whether,  by  His  references  to  Moses,  David 
and  Jonah,  He  is  to  be  understood  as  giving  authori¬ 
tative  pronouncements  on  questions  of  the  Higher 
Criticism  which  have  recently  come  to  the  front. 
On  this  subject  no  scholar  has  written  more  pro¬ 
foundly  or  wisely  than  the  late  Professor  Tholuck ; 
and  it  may  be  worth  while  to  quote  his  summing-up 
on  this  particular  point  in  his  precious  little  book 
entitled  The  Old  Testament  in  the  New:  “Human 
knowledge  is  of  two  kinds — that  which,  under  greater 
or  less  external  stimulus,  develops  itself  purely  in¬ 
wardly  in  thought  or  intuition,  and  that  which 
is  learned  from  man  and  can  be  stamped  upon 
the  memory.  If  the  development  of  the  Redeemer 
was  a  universally  human  one,  the  knowledge  inside 
the  religious-moral  sphere,  especially  that  necessary 
for  the  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures,  which  has  to 
be  learned  by  memory  can  only  have  become  known 
to  Him  according  to  the  state  of  culture  in  His  time, 


THE  THINGS  OF  GOD 


277 


and  the  means  of  education  which  His  circumstances 
supplied.  Proofs  could  be  adduced  that  even  in  such 
questions,  belonging  to  learned  exegesis,  as  for  in¬ 
stance  the  historical  connection  of  a  passage,  or  the 
writer  and  age  of  a  book,  an  original  spiritual  glance, 
even  without  the  culture  of  the  schools,  can  frequently 
divine  the  truth ;  and  the  highest  degree  of  this 
divinatory  power  is  to  be  ascribed  to  Jesus.  Yet  this 
cannot  take  the  place  of  real  scientific  study.  Not  to 
reveal  science,  not  even  theological  science,  to  the 
world,  did  the  Redeemer  appear,  but  to  speak  and 
live  out  before  mankind  the  truth  of  religion  and 
morals.  Although  we  find,  in  the  sayings  of  Jesus 
we  possess,  no  formal  hermeneutic  mistake,  yet  the 
impossibility  of  such  cannot  be  asserted  a  priori  any 
more  than  the  impossibility  of  a  grammatical  blunder 
or  a  chronological  slip.  If  the  period  of  critical 
rationalism  has  swept  like  a  flood  over  the  older 
theology,  and  carried  away  many  traditional  views 
and  prejudices,  it  has  at  least  left  us  one  gain — the 
consciousness  of  the  distinction  between  Christian- 
religious  knowledge,  which  belongs  to  mankind,  and 
Christian-theological  knowledge,  which  belongs  to  the 
school.”  % 

The  other  portion  of  the  worship  of  the  synagogue 
in  which  Jesus  seems  to  have  particularly  delighted 
was  prayer.  No  change  in  the  religious  history  of 
mankind  is  more  momentous  than  that  from  the 
worship  of  God  by  sacrifice  to  worship  by  means  of 


278 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


prayer.  The  difference  was  immense  between  the 
religious  notions  of  a  Hebrew  who,  in  order  to  deal 
with  God  about  himself,  had  to  travel  to  the  sanctuary 
at  Jerusalem  and  offer  a  sacrifice  to  Jehovah  there, 
through  the  intervention  of  a  priest,  and  that  of  one 
who,  wherever  he  might  be,  in  the  utmost  corner  of 
the  land,  could,  by  shutting  his  eyes  and  lifting  up 
his  hands,  deal  with  the  Deity  there  and  then.  The 
rise  of  the  synagogue-system,  for  which  there  is  no 
legal  warrant  in  the  Old  Testament,  was  an  evidence, 
that  this  momentous  transition  had  been  accom¬ 
plished  ;  and  it  fostered  greatly  the  simpler  and 
more  spiritual  form  of  worship.  Jesus  entered  into  it 
with  all  His  heart.  It  is  known  how  He  used,  during 
H  is  public  ministry,  to  retire  to  the  mountain — that 
is,  not  any  particular  mountain,  but  the  mountainous 
region  which  was  accessible  from  nearly  every  town 
of  Palestine — to  pray.  To  these  solitudes  He  some¬ 
times  climbed  before  sunrise,  and  before  the  human 
beings  around  Him  were  astir  ;  sometimes  He  would 
go  up  in  the  evening  and  spend  the  whole  night 
among  the  silent  pastures  ;  and  it  is  noticeable  that 
such  a  night  of  prayer  was  apt  to  precede  the  occur¬ 
rence  of  any  momentous  choice  or  pivotal  incident 
in  His  life.  These  habits  He  taught  also  to  Plis 
disciples  ;  and  He  accompanied  His  efforts  with 
many  a  direction  as  to  the  spirit  and  manner  of 
prayer.  Thus,  in  the  parable  of  the  Pharisee  and 
the  Publican,  He  utterly  condemned  the  kind  of 


THE  THINGS  OF  GOD 


279 


prayer  which  is  offered  as  a  tribute  to  God  and 
expresses  the  worshipper’s  sense  of  fulness  and  self- 
sufficiency,  while  He  indicated  that  the  prayer  which 
prevails  is  that  which  expresses  the  sense  of  need 
and  comes  to  receive  everything  from  the  Deity.* 
In  the  parables  of  the  Unjust  Judge  and  the  Friend  at 
Midnight,  He  recommended  a  holy  urgency  as  one  of 
the  virtues  of  prayer  ;  and  He  frequently  expatiated 
on  the  advantages  of  united  prayer,  setting  no  limits 
to  the  efficacy  of  prayer  in  which  two  or  more  agree 
together.  It  must  have  been  with  a  profound  ex¬ 
perience  of  having  obtained  much  Himself  from  this 
source  that  He  gave  the  assurance :  “  Ask,  and  it 
shall  be  given  you  ;  seek,  and  ye  shall  find  ;  knock, 
and  it*  shall  be  opened  unto  you  ;  for  everyone  that 
asketh  receiveth,  and  he  that  seeketh  findeth,  and  to 
him  that  knocketh  it  shall  be  opened.” 

The  Lord’s  Prayer  is  the  summing-up  of  all  His 
teaching  on  this  subject ;  and,  among  the  innumerable 
truths  to  be  learnt  from  it,  none  is  more  palpable  than 
the  stress  laid  on  the  things  of  God.  It  was  remarked, 
in  an  earlier  portion  of  this  volume,  that  out  of  seven 
petitions  in  the  Lord’s  Prayer  three  are  devoted  to  sin 
under  different  points  of  view,  and  this  fact  was  taken 
as  an  indication  of  the  importance  of  that  subject  in 

*  The  phrase  in  Luke  xviii.  14,  “Justified  rather  than  the 
other,”  supposes  the  two  men  to  be  appealing  to  God  to  decide 
which  is  the  genuine  kind  of  prayer;  and  the  Judge  gives  the 
decision  in  favour  of  the  one  and  against  the  other.  Compare 
what  was  said  on  p.  60  about  “righteousness.” 


28o 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


the  mind  of  Jesus.  Similarly  it  has  now  to  be  noticed 
that  other  three — and  these  the  three  opening  petitions 
of  the  prayer — relate  to  the  things  of  God  ;  and  we 
may  draw  the  same  inference,  that  the  prominence 
thus  given  to  these  proves  the  value  placed  on  them 
by  Jesus.  In  comparison,  daily  bread,  which  stands 
for  those  things  which  are  believed  by  people  who 
do  not  themselves  pray  to  be  the  great  topics  of 
prayer,  absorbs  only  a  single  petition.  The  things  of 
God  were  foremost  in  the  mind  of  Jesus,  and  fore¬ 
most  He  desired  them  to  be  in  the  minds  of  His 
disciples  in  their  holiest  moments. 

The  elements  of  worship  hitherto  discussed  belong 
as  much  to  the  exercise  of  private  as  public  devotion  ; 
but,  when  we  now  come  to  what  belonged  distinc¬ 
tively  to  the  latter,  we  perceive  that  Jesus  was  not 
an  enemy  to  it,  but  the  reverse. 

Not  only  was  He  carried  to  the  temple  in  His 
infancy,  to  be  made  a  citizen  of  the  holy  nation 
through  the  rite  of  circumcision,  but,  at  the  age  of 
twelve,  He  was  brought  to  the  same  place  at  one 
of  the  annual  feasts ;  and  on  this  occasion  His 
enthusiasm  for  the  sacred  building  and  the  rites 
concentrated  there  was  evinced  both  by  the  ex¬ 
traordinary  incident  of  His  staying  behind  after 
His  parents  had  left  the  spot  and  by  His  remark¬ 
able  saying:  “Wist  ye  not  that  I  must  be  in  My 
Father’s  house?”  The  same  enthusiasm  blazed 


THE  THINGS  OF  GOD 


281 


forth  again  in  a  flame  of  prophetic  zeal  when  He 
drove  the  buyers  and  sellers  out  of  the  temple, 
saying  :  “  My  house  shall  be  called  a  house  of  prayer 
for  all  nations,  but  ye  have  made  it  a  den  of  thieves.” 
During  His  public  ministry  Jesus  was  a  regular 
visitor  to  the  Holy  City  at  the  festivals  ;  and,  on 
these  occasions,  He  appears  to  have  been  a  fre¬ 
quenter  of  the  temple  ;  for,  during  His  trial,  He 
said  to  His  accusers  :  “  I  was  daily  with  you  in  the 
temple,  and  ye  found  no  fault  in  Me.”  To  the  sacri¬ 
fices  of  the  place  there  is  little  allusion  in  His  words, 
though  this  is  not  entirely  wanting ;  but,  on  one  of 
the  last  evenings  of  His  life,  He  observed  the  Pass- 
over  with  His  disciples  ;  and  the  lamb  which  they 
used  on  that  occasion  must  have  been  sacrificed 
like  the  other  victims  of  the  festival. 

On  one  of  the  last  days  of  His  life,  sitting  with 
certain  of  His  disciples  on  the  Mount  of  Olives, 
over  against  the  temple,  He  discoursed  with  great 
solemnity  on  the  approaching  fall  of  the  venerable 
edifice ;  and  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  He 
implied  that  the  worship,  along  with  the  building, 
was  to  be  swept  away.  But,  months  before,  He  had 
sketched  the  outline  of  a  system  of  worship  that 
was  to  take  its  place.  It  was  at  Caesarea  Philippi, 
at  the  close  of  His  Galilean  ministry,  that,  upon 
hearing  St.  Peter’s  great  confession,  which  acknow¬ 
ledged  Him  to  be  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living 
God,  He  replied,  after  acknowledging  the  confession  : 


282 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


“  Thou  art  Peter ;  and  upon  this  rock  I  will  build 
My  Church  ;  and  the  gates  of  Hell  shall  not  prevail* 
against  it.”  Into  these  expressions  so  much  has  been 
read,  and  so  interminable  have  been  the  controversies 
waged  over  them,  that  it  is  difficult  to  get  back  to 
their  original  meaning  ;  but,  at  the  very  least,  they 
foreshadow  a  community  engaged  in  religious  wor¬ 
ship,  and  destined  to  last  as  long  as  the  world. 
And  the  same  fact  is  indicated  in  the  saying : 
“  Where  two  or  three  are  met  together  in  My  name, 

*  The  difficult  words  that  follow  (Matt.  xvi.  19),  “And  I 
will  give  unto  thee  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven ;  and 
whatsoever  thou  shalt  bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  in  heaven  ; 
and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  loose  on  earth  shall  be  loosed  in 
heaven,”  are  interpreted  by  Calvin  as  applying  solely  to  doctrine 
— the  authoritative  formulation  of  the  truth  in  correspondence 
with  Scripture  ( Institutes ,  bk.  iv.,  ch.  ii.).  The  similar  passage, 
(Matt  xviii.  18),  “Verily  Isay  unto  you,  Whatsoever  ye  shall 
bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  in  heaven  ;  and  whatsoever  ye 
shall  loose  on  earth  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven,”  he  refers 
similarly  to  discipline  in  the  Church,  with  which  the  preceding 
verses  are  obviously  dealing.  In  both  cases  he  enters  fully  into 
the  conditions  and  limitations  under  which  alone  it  can  be 
claimed  that  the  decisions  of  the  Church  have  the  authority  of 
Heaven.  At  such  limitations  the  Church  of  Rome  may  be 
scornful,  quoting  them  as  evidence  that  Protestant  ministers 
have  not  faith  in  their  own  authority ;  but  she  ought  to  remember 
how  numerous  and  notorious  are  the  instances  in  which  the 
mind  and  conscience  of  the  world  have  decided  that  what  has 
been  bound  or  loosed  by  her  on  earth  cannot  possibly  have 
been  bound  or  loosed  in  heaven.  It  is  certainly  wonderful  that 
Christ  should  have  attributed  such  powers  to  human  beings  at 
all ;  but  it  is  only  explicable  on  the  understanding  that  these  are 
acting  in  prayerful  submission  to  the  leading  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
and  in  modest  loyalty  to  the  guidance  of  Scripture. 


THE  THINGS  OF  GOD 


283 


there  am  I  in  the  midst  of  them.”  He  made  known 
that  the  entry  to  the  Church  was  to  be  through  an 
initiatory  rite,  occupying  the  same  place  as  circum¬ 
cision  had  done  in  the  former  economy,  when  He 
charged  His  apostles  to  go  into  all  the  world  and 
preach  the  Gospel  to  every  creature,  baptizing  them 
in  the  name  of  the  Father  and  the  Son  and  the 
Holy  Ghost.  And  the  other  great  rite  of  the  Church 
was  instituted  by  Him,  when,  on  the  night  of  the 
Passover,  and  with  the  very  elements  with  which  He 
and  His  disciples  were  celebrating  that  ordinance, 
He  observed  the  Lord’s  Supper.  On  the  part  of 
some  German  divines  there  has  recently  been  an 
attempt  to  prove  that  Jesus  did  not  intend  this  to 
be  a  lasting  ordinance ;  but  it  is  impossible  to  con¬ 
ceive  of  a  discussion  in  which  there  is  less  reality.* 
The  real  difficulty  about  these  two  rites  of  Christianity 
is  not  whether  or  not  Jesus  instituted  them,  but  how 
He  could  have  done  so  if  He  had  foreknown  that 
they  were  in  the  course  of  the  Christian  centuries 
to  be  converted  into  such  instruments  of  super¬ 
stition  ;  for  round  them  have  gathered  all  the  most 
glaring  perversions  of  the  religion  which  calls  itself 
by  His  name.  This  is  a  great  mystery,  for  the 
clearing  up  of  which  we  must  wait  to  the  day  of 

*  In  Wellhausen’s  commentary  on  St.  Mark  {in  loci)  will  be 
found  a  summary  of  recent  discussions  in  Germany  on  this 
subject ;  but  I  find  it  difficult  to  comprehend  of  what  use  it  can 
be  to  anyone  who  is  in  pursuit  of  things,  not  of  words. 


284 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


revelation  ;  but  in  the  meantime  the  duty  of  the 
Church  is  to  ascertain,  with  the  greatest  possible 
exactness,  what  Jesus  Himself  intended  by  these 
rites  and  seek  to  make  them  subservient  to  the 
ends  which  He  had  in  His  mind. 

With  the  other  centre  of  religion  in  Palestine 
Jesus  was  even  more  familiar,  and  the  Church  of 
primitive  times  was  even  more  directly  modelled  on 
the  synagogue  than  on  the  temple.  Undoubtedly 
Jesus  was  a  regular  and  diligent  attender  of  the 
synagogue  in  His  childhood  and  youth  ;  and,  during 
His  public  ministry,  He  made  constant  use  of  the 
opportunities  afforded  by  it  to  meet  with  and  instruct 
the  people.  It  was  in  the  synagogue  of  Nazareth 
that,  after  reading  a  passage  from  Isaiah  in  which 
the  prophetic  office  of  the  Messiah  is  described  in  the 
most  impressive  terms,  He  turned  the  words  into  a 
manifesto  of  His  own  Messiahship.  It  is  distinctly 
said  that  He  preached  throughout  all  the  synagogues 
of  Galilee,  and  some  of  His  miracles  were  wrought  in 
the  same  buildings.  When  the  apostles  went  forth, 
after  the  Ascension,  to  preach  the  Gospel,  it  was  in 
the  synagogue  everywhere  that  they  secured  their 
first  hearing  ;  and,  even  if  they  were  driven  thence, 
the  new  place  of  worship,  set  up  in  its  stead,  copied 
the  order  of  the  synagogue  as  a  matter  of  course. 

It  is  often  lightly  said  that,  while  Jesus  diffused 
through  the  world  the  essence  of  truth  and  the 


THE  THINGS  OF  GOD 


285 


fragrance  of  an  imperishable  influence,  He  left 
behind  Him  no  organization  or  machinery  of  an 
ecclesiastical  nature.  But  to  say  so  is  hardly  recon¬ 
cilable  with  the  copiousness  with  which  He  spoke 
about  such  subjects  as  the  Sabbath,  the  Bible  and 
prayer,  or  with  the  pregnant  hints  which  may  be 
found  among  His  sayings  as  to  the  doctrine,  the 
worship  and  the  discipline  of  the  Church.  It  ought 
to  be  remembered  that  He  was  born  and  grew  up  in 
a  community  where  the  religious  organization  exer¬ 
cised  over  the  lives  of  His  fellow-countrymen  a 
control  separate  from  that  of  the  State — to  which, 
indeed,  at  the  time,  the  State  was  hostile — but  which 
was  certainly  not  inferior  in  influence  to  the  State. 
So  much  had  this  influence  been  to  Himself  and 
those  nearest  Him,  that  it  was  the  most  natural  thing 
in  the  world  for  Him  to  think  of  it,  or  something 
equivalent,  as  controlling  the  world  of  the  future.  It 
is,  no  doubt,  with  the  intention  of  honouring  Jesus 
that  some  attempt  to  separate  Him  from  the 
ecclesiastical  organization  ;  but  the  history  of  reli¬ 
gions  does  not  support  the  idea  that  mere  spiritual 
influences,  breathed  into  the  air,  last  long  or  travel 
far.  On  the  contrary,  it  demonstrates  that,  to 
provide  channels  in  whicx  beliefs  and  practices  may 
flow  on  from  land  to  land,  and  from  age  to  age,  is, 
only  less  than  the  invention  of  such  inspirations 
themselves,  the  prerogative  of  religious  genius. 


THE  LOVE  OF  MAN 


Matt  v.  23,  24,  38- 
48. 

vi.  1-5,  12. 
xviii.  15-17. 

xix.  16-22. 

xx.  25-28. 
xxii.  21,  39, 

40- 


Mark  iii.  4.  Luke 

vi.  37,  38,  41, 

42. 

vii.  34. 
x.  19. 

xii.  28*34. 


vi.  27-38,  41 
42. 

x.  25-37. 

xi.  42. 

xviii.  1-8,  18 
27. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 


THE  LOVE  OF  MAN 


O  the  second  great  commandment—"  Thou 


X  shalt  love  thy  neighbour  as  thyself” — -Jesus 
rendered  a  still  greater  service  than  to  the  first  by 
lifting  it  out  of  the  place  where  it  occurs  in  the  Old 
Testament  and  stamping  it  with  His  imprimatur  ; 
as  may  be  seen  by  anyone  who  will  take  the  trouble 
to  look  it  up  in  the  Book  of  Leviticus ;  for  there 
it  will  be  found  side  by  side  with  a  law  forbidding 
the  wearing  of  clothing  made  partly  of  wool  and 
partly  of  linen,  and  another  forbidding  the  sowing  of 
a  field  with  divers  kinds  of  seeds. 

It  would  appear,  indeed,  from  the  record  of  the 
life  of  Jesus,  that  the  scribes  in  His  day  had  not 
altogether  overlooked  this  commandment.  On  the 
contrary,  it  had  come  under  their  frequent  notice ; 
but  they  had  given  to  it  a  distortion  which  exposes 
what  manner  of  teachers  they  were  ;  for,  assuming 
that  it  could  not  possibly  mean  what  it  said,  they 
read  it  in  this  way  :  “  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour, 
and  hate  thine  enemy.”  Nor  did  this  remain  a  mere 
speculation  or  dead  letter  :  it  is  well  known  how 


290 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


the  Jews  did  actually  hate  the  Samaritans,  putting 
them  on  the  same  level  with  the  heathen,  and  how,  even 
among  their  own  fellow-countrymen,  they  extended 
the  same  dislike  and  hostility  to  the  publicans  and 
sinners.  Nor  was  this  inability  to  comprehend  the 
philanthropy  which  lies  at  the  root  of  this  great 
law  of  the  Old  Testament  confined  to  the  Jews. 
The  cultivated  peoples  of  the  West  divided  mankind 
into  Greeks  and  barbarians,  the  latter  being  objects 
of  aversion  and  contempt.  Among  both  Greeks  and 
Romans  it  was  esteemed,  as  is  remarked  in  Ecce 
Homo ,  the  highest  praise  of  a  dead  man  to  say  that 
none  had  done  more  good  to  his  friends  or  more  harm 
to  his  foes  ;  and,  amongst  savage  races,  the  hatred  of 
enemies  has  usually  been  regarded  as  a  religious  duty. 

Once,  when  Jesus  was  quoting  the  second  great 
commandment  from  the  Old  Testament,  He  was 
confronted  with  this  monstrous  limitation  of  its 
sweep  and  application,  by  a  scribe  among  the  by¬ 
standers  asking,  “  But  who  is  my  neighbour  ?  ” 
Evidently  the  man  desired  the  term  “  neighbour  ” 
to  have  a  limited  scope,  while  he  craved  permission 
to  hate  the  immeasurable  circle  of  his  fellow-creatures 
lying  beyond.  Jesus  answered  by  narrating  the 
parable  of  the  Good  Samaritan — one  of  the  divinest 
of  His  inspirations.  It  would  not  be  easy  to  com¬ 
prise  the  teaching  of  this  great  utterance  in  any  brief 
formula.  The  conduct  of  the  priest  and  the  Levite 
was  intended  to  show  how  zeal  for  God  may  be 


THE  LOVE  OF  MAN 


291 


attended  with  total  lack  of  sympathy  with  man ; 
while  the  appearance  of  the  Samaritan  proves  how 
far,  sometimes,  the  simple  instincts  of  nature  may 
outrun  the  artificial  training  of  religion.  But  un¬ 
doubtedly  the  point  of  the  parable  lies  in  the  scope 
assigned  to  the  term  “  neighbour  ”  ;  and  never  was 
there  an  instance  which  more  fully  demonstrated 
how  Jesus  could  impose  an  utterly  novel  point 
of  view  on  opinion  and  conduct.  The  definition  is 
found  by  Him,  not  in  the  claim  of  the  person  to 
be  loved,  but  in  the  heart  of  the  person  who  loves. 
The  conduct  of  the  Samaritan  could  not  but  com¬ 
mand  admiration  ;  and  Jesus  concludes  from  it  that 
all  should  act  in  such  a  way  as  to  secure  similar 
acknowledgment.  It  is  the  identical  sentiment  which 
He  has  stamped  forever  as  the  Golden  Rule  :  “  All 
things  whatsoever  ye  would  that  men  should  do  to 
you,  do  ye  even  so  to  them.” 

There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  much  virtue 
may  reside  in  the  mere  elevation  of  this  command¬ 
ment  to  the  position  assigned  to  it  by  Jesus  ;  and 
a  great  deal  may  be  done  by  merely  repeating  the 
precepts  in  which  it  is  more  fully  formulated  and 
urging  these  on  the  attention  of  all.  Learning  may 
also  help  to  throw  them  into  relief  by  comparing 
and  contrasting  them  with  the  ethical  precepts  of 
other  systems.  For  example,  there  has  been  much 
discussion  as  to  whether  the  Golden  Rule  can  be 


292 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


demonstrated  to  have  been  ever  enunciated  by  any 
moralist  before  our  Lord.  I  believe  the  result  of 
such  investigations  has  been  to  establish  His 
originality  ; .  the  nearest  approach  to  the  Christian 
precept  being  the  negative  one :  Do  not  to  others 
anything  which  you  would  not  that  they  should  do 
to  you.  * 

Still,  I  should  doubt,  whether  the  ethical  origin¬ 
ality  of  Jesus  is  to  be  chiefly  sought  in  the  difference 
between  His  ethical  precepts  and  those  of  other 
masters.  To  give  utterance  to  such  sentiments,  how¬ 
ever  sublime,  is  a  comparatively  easy  thing ;  and 
multitudes  have  been  able  to  utter  such,  or  at  least 
to  admire  them  when  uttered  by  others,  without 
exhibiting  the  smallest  disposition  to  practise  them. 
The  real  difficulty  appears  rather  to  lie  in  quickening 
the  will  in  such  a  way  that  it  may  be  disposed  to 
follow  the  lofty  path,  when  it  is  descried ;  and, 
therefore,  we  do  not  so  much  inquire  what  ethical 
precepts  Jesus  uttered  which  were  novel  and  superior 
to  those  already  made  current  by  others  as  ask 
what  new  motives  He  was  able  to  bring  into  play, 
to  stimulate  the  sluggish  will  and  thereby  give  the 
commandments  a  chance  of  being  fulfilled. 


*  The  Book  of  Tobit,  iv.  15,  says:  “And  what  thou  thyself 
hatest,  do  to  no  man.”  Hillel  is  reported  to  have  said,  “  What 
is  disagreeable  to  thyself,  that  do  not  to  thy  neighbour.”  See 
the  subject  investigated  by  Barth,  Die  Hauptprobleme  des  LeOens 
Jesu,  p.  85. 


THE  LOVE  OF  MAN 


293 


In  speaking  in  a  previous  chapter  of  the  contri¬ 
bution  made  by  Jesus  to  the  first  great  commandment 
— that  which  enjoins  the  love  of  God — I  remarked 
that  it  was  not  so  much  by  bringing  this  command¬ 
ment  forth  out  of  obscurity,  or  by  reiterating  and 
emphasizing  it,  that  He  secured  for  it  a  new  hold 
on  the  attention  of  men  ;  but  rather  by  making  it 
easier  to  love  God  ;  this  being  effected  by  showing 
the  divine  Being  to  be  more  lovable ;  and  a  similar 
statement  may  now  be  made  concerning  this  second 
commandment :  it  was  not  by  uttering  the  command¬ 
ment  in  a  louder  voice  or  repeating  it  more  frequently 
that  Jesus  secured  for  it  new  attention,  but  by 
making  it  easier  to  love  man — by  showing  how 
worthy  of  reverence  and  regard  human  nature  is. 

There  are  no  more  characteristic  elements  in  the 
Gospel  and  none  which  have  exerted  profounder 
influence  in  history  than  those  which  bring  out  the 
infinite  worth  attaching  to  the  meanest  member  of 
the  human  species.  Such  is  the  great  saying, 
commented  on  in  a  previous  chapter  :  “  What  shall 
it  profit  a  man,  if  he  gain  the  whole  world,  and  lose 
his  own  soul  ?  ”  Such  are  the  parables  in  the 
fifteenth  chapter  of  St.  Luke,  which  reveal  the  joy 
there  is  in  heaven  over  one  sinner  that  repenteth. 
Such  is  the  great  discourse  on  offences,  also  com¬ 
mented  on  already,  where  the  Teacher  deprecates  the 
mishandling  of  the  very  least  of  those  who  believe 
in  Him  as  a  sacrilege  worthy  of  the  direst  punish- 


294 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


ment.*  To  the  same  kind  of  impression  the  uniform 
behaviour  of  Jesus  to  the  poor  and  suffering,  to 
children  and  to  women,  immensely  contributed.  It 
is  to  the  generation  of  such  sentiments  of  respect 
and  tenderness  for  all  human  beings,  even  the 
smallest,  the  meanest  and  the  worst,  that  the  trans¬ 
formations  wrought  by  Christianity  in  the  behaviour 


*  Nothing  is  more  characteristic  of  great  literature  than  the 
power  of  uttering,  in  felicitous  and  arresting  language,  profound 
ethical  principles,  which  flash  into  the  abysses  of  human  nature 
or  irradiate  vast  tracts  of  human  life.  Of  these  I  have  collected, 
not  without  care,  some  forty,  which  will  convey  an  impression 
of  the  wealth,  in  this  respect,  of  the  words  of  Jesus.  I  should 
not  wonder  if  a  book  on  the  subject  of  this  volume  might  be 
written  with  these  as  the  mottoes  of  the  chapters ;  and,  at  all 
events,  I  venture  to  commend  them  to  anyone  who  may  be 
stimulated  by  the  reading  of  this  book  to  give,  in  the  pulpit,  a 
course  of  lectures  on  the  ethical  teaching  of  Jesus. 

They  that  are  whole  have  no  need  ot  the  physician,  but  they 
that  are  sick;  I  came  not  to  call  the  righteous,  but  sinners  to 
repentance. 

Verily  I  say  unto  you,  Whosoever  shall  not  receive  the  kingdom 
of  God  as  a  little  child,  he  shall  not  enter  therein. 

But  many  that  are  first  shall  be  last,  and  the  last  first. 

The  disciple  is  not  above  his  master  nor  the  servant  above 
his  lord. 

Whosoever  exalteth  himself  shall  be  abased,  and  he  that 
humbleth  himself  shall  be  exalted. 

First  cast  the  beam  out  of  thine  own  eye,  and  then  thou  shalt 
see  clearly  to  cast  out  the  mote  out  of  thy  brother’s  eye. 

If  a  kingdom  be  divided  against  itself,  that  kingdom  cannot 
stand.  And,  if  a  house  be  divided  against  itself,  that  house 
cannot  stand. 

No  man  can  enter  into  a  strong  man’s  house  and  spoil  his 


THE  LOVE  OF  MAN 


295 


of  man  to  man  in  the  course  of  the  centuries  have 
been  principally  due. 

Jesus  never  despised  the  body.  How  could  He, 
when  it  is  His  Father’s  handiwork  ?  “  The  very 

hairs  of  your  head,”  He  said,  “are  all  numbered.” 
He  recognised  the  needs  of  the  body  when  He 
taught  men  to  pray,  “  Give  us  this  day  our  daily 


goods,  except  he  will  first  bind  the  strong  man,  and  then  he  will 
spoil  his  house. 

For,  whosoever  hath,  to  him  shall  be  given,  and  he  shall  have 
more  abundance :  but  whosoever  hath  not,  from  him  shall  be 
taken  away  even  that  he  hath. 

A  prophet  is  not  without  honour  but  in  his  own  country,  and 
among  his  own  kin,  and  in  his  own  house. 

There  is  nothing  from  without  a  man  that,  entering  into  him, 
can  defile  him ;  but  the  things  which  come  out  of  him,  these  are 
they  that  defile  the  man. 

For  whosoever  will  save  his  life  shall  lose  it ;  but  whosoever 
shall  lose  his  life  for  My  sake  and  the  Gospel’s,  the  same  shall 
save  it. 

If  any  man  desire  to  be  first,  the  same  shall  be  last  of  all,  and 
servant  of  all. 

He  that  is  not  with  Me  is  against  Me ;  and  he  that  gathereth 
not  with  Me  scattereth. 

He  that  is  not  against  us  is  on  our  part.  For  whosoever  will 
give  you  a  cup  of  cold  water  to  drink,  because  ye  belong  to 
Christ,  verily  I  say  unto  you,  he  shall  not  lose  his  reward.  And 
whosoever  shall  offend  one  of  these  little  ones  that  believe  in 
Me,  it  is  better  for  him  that  a  millstone  were  hanged  about  his 
neck,  and  he  were  cast  into  the  sea. 

With  God  all  things  are  possible 

No  man  putteth  a  piece  of  a  new  garment  upon  an  old  :  if 
otherwise,  then  both  the  new  maketh  a  rent,  and  the  piece  that 
was  taken  out  of  the  new  agreeth  not  with  the  old.  And  no 
man  putteth  new  wine  into  old  bottles  j  else  the  new  wine  will 


296 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


bread.”  By  His  miracles  of  healing  He  imparted  a 

new  dignity  to  that  art  which  has  the  body  for  its 

care.  He  permitted  His  own  body  to  be  anointed 

with  the  costliest  spikenard,  saying  that  this  was 

done  against  His  burial,  and  thus  He  sanctified  the 

reverent  disposal  even  of  the  corpse.  Yet  He 

esteemed  the  honour  of  the  body  nothing  in  com- 

- - - - - - - - -  ^  - - — - - - — 

burst  the  bottles  and  be  spilled,  and  the  bottles  will  perish. 

But  new  wine  must  be  put  into  new  bottles  ;  and  both  are 
preserved. 

With  the  same  measure  that  ye  mete  withal  it  shall  be 
measured  to  you  again. 

For  a  good  tree  bringeth  not  forth  corrupt  fruit,  neither 
doth  a  corrupt  tree  bring  forth  good  fruit.  A  good  man  out 
of  the  good  treasure  of  his  heart  bringeth  forth  that  which 
is  good,  and  an  evil  man  out  of  the  evil  treasure  of  his  heart 
bringeth  forth  that  which  is  evil ;  for  of  the  abundance  of  the 
heart  his  mouth  speaketh. 

Wisdom  is  justified  of  all  her  children. 

To  whom  little  is  forgiven  the  same  loveth  little. 

No  man,  when  he  hath  lighted  a  candle,  covereth  it  with  a 
vessel  or  putteth  it  under  a  bed,  but  setteth  it  on  a  candlestick, 
that  they  which  enter  may  see  the  light. 

No  man,  having  put  his  hand  to  the  plough,  and  looking  back, 
is  fit  for  the  kingdom  of  God. 

One  thing  is  needful. 

For  every  one  that  asketh  receiveth ;  and  he  that  seeketh 
findeth  ;  and  to  him  that  knocketh  it  shall  be  opened. 

A  man’s  life  consisteth  not  in  the  abundance  of  the  things 
which  he  possesseth. 

It  is  easier  for  a  camel  to  go  through  the  eye  of  a  needle 
than  for  a  rich  man  to  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God. 

He  that  is  faithful  in  that  which  is  least  is  faithful  also  in 
much ;  and  he  that  is  unjust  in  the  least  is  unjust  also  in 
m  uch 

No  servant  can  serve  two  masters ;  for  either  he  will  hate 


THE  LOVE  OF  MAN 


297 


parison  with  that  of  the  soul :  a  single  soul  is  worth 
the  whole  of  the  material  universe,  of  which  the  body 
forms  a  part.  When  He  thought  or  spoke  of  the 
soul,  He  saw,  with  the  mind’s  eye,  not  only  its 
present  condition  but  its  future  possibilities — all  it 
could  grow  to  and  would  grow  to — in  union  with 
Himself.*  To  the  greatest  thinkers  of  the  race 

the  one  and  love  the  other,  or  else  he  will  hold  to  the  one  and 
despise  the  other.  Ye  cannot  serve  God  and  mammon. 

The  life  is  more  than  meat,  and  the  body  is  more  than  raiment. 

Where  your  treasure  is,  there  will  your  heart  be  also. 

The  labourer  is  worthy  of  his  hire. 

Unto  whomsoever  much  is  given,  of  him  shall  be  much 
required. 

Salt  is  good ;  but,  if  the  salt  have  lost  his  savour,  wherewith 
shall  it  be  seasoned  ?  It  is  neither  fit  for  the  land,  nor  yet 
for  the  dunghill. 

If  they  hear  not  Moses  and  the  prophets,  neither  will  they 
be  persuaded  though  one  rose  from  the  dead. 

Sufficient  unto  the  day  is  the  evil  thereof. 

Every  plant  which  My  heavenly  Father  hath  not  planted  shall 
be  rooted  up. 

But  I  say  unto  you,  that,  every  idle  word  that  men  shall  speak, 
they  shall  give  account  thereof  in  the  day  of  judgment.  For 
by  thy  words  thou  shalt  be  justified,  and  by  thy  words  thou  shalt 
be  condemned. 

If  the  blind  lead  the  blind,  both  shall  fall  into  the  ditch. 

Wheresoever  the  carcase  is,  there  shall  the  eagles  be  gathered 
together. 

All  they  that  take  the  sword  shall  perish  with  the  sword. 

*  This  thought  is  well  worked  out  in  the  sixth  chapter  of 
E.  Grimm’s  Die  Ethik  Jesu — an  able  book  on  our  subject,  but 
one  which  I  never  open  without  annoyance  that  we  have  not 
received  a  greater  one  from  the  man  who  was  able  to  write 
a  work  so  brilliant  as  Das  Problem  Friedrich  Nietzsches . 


298 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


before  Him  immortality  had  been  only  an  occasional 
and  dubious  surmise,  as  indeed,  even  at  the  present 
day,  the  world’s  greatest  thinkers,  apart  from  Him, 
are  still  involved  in  the  same  hesitation.  But  Jesus 
moved  in  an  atmosphere  of  serene  certainty  on  this 
subject ;  He  dwelt  in  eternity,  as  in  His  proper 
home  and  fatherland  ;  and  His  faith  in  immortality 
was  not  for  Himself  alone,  but  for  all  His  brother 
men.  It  depended,  in  the  last  resort,  on  the  con¬ 
sciousness  of  His  return  to  the  heavenly  Father. 
But  this  faith  also  He  cherished  not  only  for  Himself 
but  also  for  His  brethren.  He  knew  that  they  had 
come  from  God  and  that  they  were  going  to  God. 
Such  was  their  dignity  and  such  their  destiny.  And 
about  beings  concerning  whom  this  could  be  said  no 
mean  thought  should  ever  be  cherished.  In  the  eyes 
of  Jesus  this  sovereign  prerogative  belonged  to  men 
without  distinction ;  it  was  not.  limited  by  race  or 
creed,  by  class  or  age  or  sex  ;  and  this  was  the 
foundation  laid  by  Him  for  the  honour  and  the  love 
He  claimed  for  each  and  all. 

It  is  only  saying  the  same  thing  in  different 
language  if  we  assert  that  the  chief  service  rendered 
by  Jesus  to  this  second  commandment  was  to  asso¬ 
ciate  it  so  closely  with  the  first.  In  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  they  lie  apart,  with  no  indication  of  any  con¬ 
nection  between  them ;  but  He  brought  the  two 
together  in  such  a  manner  as  to  suggest  that  they 
have  an  intimate  relation  to  each  other.  In  reality 


THE  LOVE  OF  MAN 


299 


they  are  twin  commandments  ;  and  so  closely  are 
they  connected  that  they  cannot  exist,  or,  at  all 
events,  they  cannot  have  a  healthy  existence  apart. 

Even  the  first  great  commandment  is  not  inde¬ 
pendent  of  the  second  ;  for,  although  in  logic  the 
first  is  primary,  as  it  is  in  authority,  yet  in  experience 
the  second  is  first.  It  is  through  the  domestic  affec¬ 
tions  that  the  heart  learns  to  know  what  love  itself  is, 
and,  if  it  did  not  first  love  man,  it  would  never  love 
God.  The  growth  and  refinement  of  the  natural 
affections  prepare  the  heart  for  satisfactions  which 
these  cannot  fully  supply ;  and  the  intensity  of 
human  love  supplies  a  standard  by  which  we  can 
measure  our  love  to  God.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
first  great  commandment  acts  as  a  protection  and 
a  stimulus  to  the  second.  When  love  to  God  is 
thoroughly  awakened,  it  is  the  most  decisive  of  all 
breaks  with  selfishness,  and,  the  spell  of  this  entangle¬ 
ment  once  broken,  every  development  of  altruistic 
sentiment  becomes  possible.  The  love  of  man  is 
commanded  in  the  law  of  God  and  backed  with  all 
the  sanctions  by  which  the  law  is  enforced. 

Yet  there  has  always  existed  a  disposition  to 
separate  the  two  commandments  from  each  other. 
In  ancient  times  this  manifested  itself  in  the  sacrifice 
of  the  second  to  the  nrst.  Ritual  was  substituted  for 
righteousness,  and  men  were  able  to  believe  them¬ 
selves  the  friends  of  God  and  the  favourites  of 
Heaven,  whilst  behaving  with  injustice  and  cruelty 


3°° 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


to  their  fellow-creatures.  In  the  first  chapter  of 
Isaiah  the  eloquence  of  the  great  prophet  is  hurled 
against  this  abuse,  and  there  is  no  point  to  which 
the  indignation  of  subsequent  prophets  is  more  fre¬ 
quently  directed.  Jesus  had  to  take  up  the  same 
strain  ;  for  this  was  one  of  the  most  crying  evils  of 
His  time.  With  many  a  keen  and  cutting  sarcasm 
did  He  attack  the  opinions  and  practices  of  His 
contemporaries,  who  thought  themselves  pleasing  to 
God  in  heaven,  on  account  of  their  fasts,  prayers  and 
Sabbaths,  while  grinding  the  faces  of  God’s  children 
on  earth  and  devouring  the  property  of  widows  and 
orphans.  Of  all  His  sayings  of  this  nature  the  most 
unmistakeable  perhaps  was  this :  “  If  thou  bring  thy 
gift  to  the  altar,  and  there  rememberest  that  thy 
brother  hath  aught  against  thee,  leave  there  thy  gift 
before  the  altar,  and  go  thy  way :  first  be  reconciled 
to  thy  brother,  and  then  come  and  offer  thy  gift.” 
In  this  saying,  as  well  as  in  some  others,  He  appears 
to  put  the  second  commandment  first.  This,  how¬ 
ever,  was  not  really  His  intention :  it  was  only  by 
the  perversity  of  the  time  that  He  was  constrained 
to  speak  so  strongly  as  to  have  the  appearance  of 
doing  so. 

The  disposition  to  make  religion  a  substitute  for 
morality  has  not  yet  died  out  of  the  world  ;  there 
are  persons  in  whose  breasts  zeal  for  God  seems  to 
burn  up  sympathy  with  man  ;  perhaps  there  are 
even  races  specially  reliable  to  this  aberration  ;  and 


THE  LOVE  OF  MAN 


3ox 


it  may  be  a  besetting  temptation  of  the  clerical 
profession.  But,  in  modern  times,  the  opposite 
mistake  is  commoner — namely,  the  tendency  to  put 
asunder  the  two  commandments  by  the  sacrifice  of 
the  first.  The  service  of  man  is  set  up  as  a  rival  to 
the  service  of  God  ;  and  morality  without  religion 
is,  in  certain  circles,  a  watchword  of  modern  progress. 
There  can  be  little  doubt,  however,  that  such  a 
notion  would  have  been  even  more  painful  to  Jesus 
than  that  against  which  He  protested,  and  that  He 
would  have  discerned  in  it  not  only  blasphemy 
against  the  Father  whom  He  loved  but,  at  the  same 
time,  a  subtle  and  insidious  attack  upon  the  honour 
and  highest  interests  of  man.  The  way  in  which 
He  tried  to  raise  man  in  the  esteem  of  his  brother 
was  by  surrounding  him  with  a  halo  of  supernatural 
dignity  in  the  spirit  of  the  eighth  Psalm,  where 
man  is  declared  to  have  been  made  but  a  little 
lower  than  God  ;  all  the  rest  of  the  creation  being 
put  under  his  feet.  But,  if  this  halo  is  evaporated 
and  man  reduced  to  the  level  of  the  animals,  with 
no  destiny  before  him  more  sacred  than  that  of  the 
worm  or  the  clod,  his  defence  is  taken  away,  and 
he  is  exposed  to  the  contempt  of  every  passer-by. 
In  the  teaching  of  Jesus  the  fatherhood  of  God  was 
the  pre-supposition  of  the  brotherhood  of  men  ;  and 
the  way  in  which  He  hoped  to  get  men  to  love  one 
another  was  by  getting  them  to  love  their  common 
Father  in  heaven. 


302 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


As  we  pursue  our  quest  among  the  sayings  of 
Jesus  for  the  new  motives  by  which  He  hoped  to 
facilitate  the  keeping  of  the  second  great  command¬ 
ment,  we  cannot  help  thinking  of  the  wonderful 
statement  of  the  duties  of  this  commandment  con¬ 
tained  in  the  parable  of  the  Last  Judgment  in  the 
end  of  the  twenty-fifth  chapter  of  St.  Matthew  :  “  I 
was  an  hungred  and  ye  gave  Me  meat,  I  was 
thirsty  and  ye  gave  Me  drink,”  and  so  on  ;  with  the 
solemn  negative  statement  of  the  same  truth :  “  I 
was  an  hungred  and  ye  gave  Me  no  meat,”  and  so 
on.  No  statement  of  duty  to  man  more  simple, 
searching  or  impressive  could  be  conceived ;  but 
certainly  the  most  striking  thing  in  this  parable  is 
the  assurance  given  to  the  righteous  that  what  they 
had  done  to  the  poor  and  needy  they  had  done  to  the 
J udge  Himself ;  together  with  the  opposite  information, 
conveyed  to  the  startled  neglecters  of  the  strangers 
and  the  prisoners,  that  the  actions  they  had  failed  to 
perform  to  these  had  been  accepted  by  the  Judge 
as  slights  upon  Himself.  It  is  possible  that  the 
primary  idea  intended  to  be  suggested  is  that,  at 
the  great  day,  all  the  compassionate  and  merciful 
will  be  treated  as  unconscious  Christians,  their  alms- 
deeds  being  accepted  as  done  to  Christ,  even  if  they 
have  been  unaware  of  His  existence ;  but  there  is 
suggested,  besides,  a  novel  motive  for  conscious 
Christian  benevolence ;  and  this  agrees  with  not  a 
few  other  sayings,  where  He  speaks  of  things  being 


THE  LOVE  OF  MAN 


303 


done  for  His  sake  or  in  His  name,  and  thereby 
acquiring  an  extraordinary  virtue  and  significance. 
As,  in  the  family,  connection  with  the  same  father 
imparts  to  the  children  the  power  of  doing  for  one 
another  far  more  than  the  ordinary  man  is  able  to 
do  for  a  neighbour,  or  as,  in  the  State,  the  patriotism 
felt  for  a  common  country  makes  it  easy  to  do  for 
a  fellow-countryman  what  it  would  be  impossible  to 
do  for  a  stranger,  so  Jesus  would  appear  to  have 
expected  a  common  connection  with  Himself  to 
enable  men  to  love  one  another,  and  consequently 
to  do  to  one  another  deeds  of  love,  far  beyond  what 
is  attainable  under  the  impulse  of  ordinary  motives. 
This  was  a  wonderful  hope  for  anyone  to  entertain 
about  himself ;  yet  in  this  case  it  has  been  fulfilled, 
and  all  the  indications  appear  to  show  that  it  is 
secure  of  yet  more  ample  fulfilment.  Intelligent 
Christians  look  at  this  world  through  the  eyes  of 
Christ ;  they  think  and  feel  about  all  men  as  He 
did  ;  and  they  cannot  neglect  or  despise  any  for 
whom  He  died. 

There  remains  still,  however,  to  be  mentioned  a 
motive  which  emerges  in  the  words  of  Christ  and 
may  perhaps  be  said  to  go  deeper  than  the  one 
just  mentioned.  Jesus  applied  the  law  of  love  to 
an  extreme  case  when  He  said :  “  Love  your 

enemies.”  To  the  same  effect  He  commanded  to 
forgive  injuries,  putting  into  the  Lord’s  Prayer  the 
petition :  “  Forgive  us  our  debts,  as  we  forgive  our 


304 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


debtors,”  and  frequently  affirming  with  solemnity 
that,  unless  we  forgive  men  their  trespasses,  our 
heavenly  Father  will  not  forgive  us.  Nothing  of 
the  kind  had  been  conceived  in  the  world  before  ;  and 
it  was  to  be  expected  that,  when  Jesus  carried  the  appli¬ 
cation  of  the  second  commandment  to  this  extremity, 
He  would  produce  also  the  strongest  of  all  motives  for 
obeying  it.  Nor  is  this  expectation  disappointed. 
There  is  a  parable  of  His  about  a  king  who  would 
take  account  of  his  servants ;  and,  when  he  began 
to  reckon,  there  was  brought  to  him  one  that  owed 
him  ten  thousand  talents — that  is  a  fabulous  sum, 
about  two  millions  sterling.  The  culprit  having  no 
means  of  paying  his  debt,  his  lord  commanded  him 
to  be  sold,  with  his  wife  and  children  and  all  that 
he  had.  But  the  wretch,  falling  down  at  his  feet, 
cried :  “  Have  patience  with  me  and  I  will  pay 

thee  all  ” ;  and  so  moved  was  his  lord  with  com¬ 
passion  that  he  forgave  him  all  the  debt.  As  the 
forgiven  servant  went  out  from  his  lord’s  presence, 
however,  he  encountered  a  fellow-servant  who  owed 
him  a  hundred  pence — a  mere  bagatelle,  half  a 
millionth  part  of  his  own  debt,  which  had  been 
cancelled — and,  seizing  him  by  the  throat,  he  de¬ 
manded,  “  Pay  me  what  thou  owest.”  The  debtor 
fell  down  at  his  feet,  crying,  “  Have  patience  with 
me  and  I  will  pay  thee  all.”  But  he  would  not, 
and  threw  him  into  prison,  till  the  debt  should  be 
paid.  This  having  come  to  the  ears  of  the  king, 


THE  LOVE  OF  MAN 


305 


he  sent  for  the  unmerciful  servant  and  thus  accosted 
him  :  “  0  thou  wicked  servant,  I  forgave  thee  all  that 
debt,  because  thou  desiredst  me  :  shouldst  thou  not 
have  had  compassion  on  thy  fellow-servant,  even 
as  I  had  pity  on  thee  ?  ”  “  And  he  was  wroth  and 

delivered  him  to  the  tormentors.”  By  this  graphic 
illustration  Jesus  showed  whence,  according  to  His 
mind,  the  spirit  of  forgiveness  must  come.  Those 
who  properly  realise  how  vast  is  the  debt  they 
owe  to  God  will  not  reckon  at  a  high  figure  the 
injuries  they  may  have  sustained  at  the  hands  of 
their  fellow-men,  and  those  who  have  a  proper 
estimate  of  the  greatness  of  the  forgiveness  extended 
to  themselves  will  not  find  it  too  difficult  to  forgive 
even  their  enemies.  This  is  the  most  significant  hint 
in  the  entire  body  of  Christ’s  teaching  as  to  the 
origin  of  the  love  of  man ;  and  what  it  seems  to 
show  is  that,  according  to  the  mind  of  Jesus,  its 
true  source  is  the  copious  presence  in  the  heart  of 
love  to  God,  springing  from  an  abiding  consciousness 
of  having  been  forgiven  much.1 


1  So  Weinel  {Jesus  im  neunzehnteii  Jahrhioidert ,  p.  127), 
commenting  on  Luke  vii.  47,  says  :  “  Der  letzte  Satz  wird 

oft  falsch  gedeutet :  man  meint,  Jesus  sage,  die  Siinden  seien 
ihr  vergeben,  weil  sie  ihm  viel  Liebe  ervviesen  habe.  Das  ist 
ganz  falsch.  Jesus  wiil  sagen,  dem  Gleichniss  entsprechend  : 
daran,  das  sie  mir  so  viel  Liebe  erzeigt,  erkenne  ich,  dass  ihr 
viele  Siinden  vergeben  sind,  nur  wem  viele  Siinden  vergeben 
worden  sind,  der  kann  so  viel  dankbare  Liebe  zeigen.” 


20 


THE  THINGS  OF  MAN 


Matt.  vi.  2-4  ;  ix.  13  ;  x.  8  ;  xii.  7  5  xxiii.  23  ;  xxv.  31-46. 

Mark  i.  41  ;  ii.  5,  11  ;  v.  43  ;  vi.  7,  13,  30,  31,  37,  41,  55,  56;  viii.  1- 

9  ;  ix.  25,  41  ;  x.  45,  49  ;  xi.  25  ;  xii.  41-44  ;  xiv.  3-9. 

Luke  iv.  40  ;  v.  15  ;  vi.  1 7- 19  ;  vii.  21,  22  ;  ix.  I,  2,  1 3,  14,  56  ;  x  9, 
3 3‘35>  37  ;  xi.  4,  5-13,  41  ;  xii.  33  ;  xiv.  1-14  ;  xvi.  9  ;  xviii.  18- 
27  ;  xxi.  1-4;  xxiii.  34. 

Matt.  iv.  19  ;  v.  14,  15,  19  ;  ix.  37,  38 ;  x.  5-42 ;  xiii.  31-33,  52  ;  xxii. 
9,  10  ;  xxvi.  13  ;  xxviii.  16-20. 

Mark  i.  17,  21,  22,  38,  39  ;  ii.  2,  13,  17  ;  iii.  14  ;  iv.  1,  2,  3-9,  21,  22, 

33>  34  ;  v.  19  ;  vi.  1-6,  12,  30,  34 ;  xii.  1  ;  xiii.  10,  n  ;  xiv.  9.  49. 

Luke  ix.  15,  32,  43,  44  ;  v.  1,  3,  10,  17  ;  vi.  6;  vii.  22  ;  viii.  1,  4-18  ; 
xii.  2,  3  ;  xiii.  26  ;  xvi.  1 6  ;  xxii.  32  ;  xxiv.  47,  48. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 


THE  THINGS  OF  MAN 

IN  the  same  way  as  love  to  God  involves  love  to 
the  things  of  God,  so  love  to  man  has  to 
manifest  itself  in  sympathy  and  consideration  for 
what  may  be  called  the  things  of  man.  And  these 
manifestations  of  a  Christian  spirit  may  go  out  either 
to  men  in  general  or  to  our  fellow-creatures  in  the 
relationships  of  life.  Let  us  begin  with  duties  to 
others  in  general. 

On  this  subject  no  one  has  written  more  attractively 

than  the  author  of  Ecce  Homo ,  in  the  second  part 

of  that  work,  where  he  deals  with  what  he  calls 

the  Legislation  of  the  Kingdom.  It  is  true  that  this 

portion  of  the  author’s  performance  is  less  original 

than  his  opening  chapters ;  but  it  was  the  first 

attempt  in  English  to  set  forth,  as  a  connected  whole, 

the  ethical  teaching  of  Jesus,  and  the  author  selected 

a  method  which  gave  full  scope  to  his  own  rare 

acquirements ;  exhibiting  the  outlines  of  Christian 

morality  by  contrasting  it,  point  by  point,  with  the 

ethics  of  the  classical  nations.  With  a  sovereign 

survey  not  only  over  the  philosophical  speculation 

309 


3IQ 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


of  the  ancients,  but  over  the  illustrative  material 
supplied  by  the  history  and  literature  of  Greece  and 
Rome,  he  presents,  against  the  background  of  the 
ancient  beliefs  and  practices,  the  ideals  of  the  new 
life  introduced  by  Jesus.  These  he  comprehends 
under  five  heads — the  Law  of  Philanthropy,  the  Law 
of  Edification,  the  Law  of  Mercy,  the  Law  of  Resent¬ 
ment,  and  the  Law  of  Forgiveness.  No  method  of 
teaching  anything  that  is  new  can  be  more  instructive 
and  illuminative  than  thus  to  compare  it  with  some¬ 
thing  else  of  the  same  kind  with  which  the  student 
is  already  familiar ;  and  in  this  case  everyone  imbued 
with  any  tincture  of  classical  knowledge  must  enjoy 
the  saliency  with  which  the  features  of  the  Christian 
ideal  are  brought  out,  especially  as  the  ethical 
instincts  of  the  author  are  as  refined  as  his  scholar¬ 
ship  is  thorough. 

Yet  it  has  long  been  manifest  to  scholars  in  this 
department  that  the  analysis  is  not  only  limited  but 
misleading.  It  is  thoroughly  English,  and  the  point 
of  view  is  that  of  an  Oxford  or  Cambridge  tutor, 
whose  Moral  Philosophy  embraces  only  the  duties 
of  men  to  men,  but  not  the  duties  of  man  to  God. 
It  was  characteristic  of  the  school  of  thought  to  which 
the  author  belonged  to  substitute  favourite  ideas  of 
its  own  for  the  whole  testimony  of  the  Word  of  God  ; 
and  it  is  only  necessary  to  compare  the  texts  which 
can,  with  the  utmost  stretching,  be  quoted  in  illustra¬ 
tion  of  the  five  laws  with  the  whole  sum  of  the 


THE  THINGS  OF  MAN 


3ii 


ethical  teaching  of  Jesus  to  see  how  defective  the 
representation  is.  In  reality,  the  author  takes  account 
only  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount — or  rather  of  as 
much  of  this  as  is  found  in  the  sixth  chapter  of 
St.  Luke — but  this  is  no  more  than  a  tenth  of  the 
material  in  our  hands. 

Count  Tolstoy  knows  a  little  better  what  he  is 
doing.  He  is  aware  that  the  few  sayings  out  of 
which  he  constructs  his  view  of  Christianity  form 
but  an  inconsiderable  portion  of  what  has  come 
down  to  us  from  the  lips  of  Christ.  But  he  also 
deliberately  confines  himself  to  about  the  same 
amount  of  material  as  the  author  of  Ecce  Homo , 
giving  as  his  reason  the  fact  that  these  few  sayings 
have  always  seemed  to  him  the  essence  of  Christianity, 
all  the  rest,  even  when  put  in  the  mouth  of  the 
Founder,  being  wood,  hay,  stubble,  in  comparison. 
With  this  there  are,  no  doubt,  many  who  will 
sympathize  ;  because,  to  the  popular  mind,  choice 
selections  from  any  great  or  beautiful  production  are, 
as  a  rule,  more  agreeable  and  acceptable  than  the 
thing  itself.  But  this  is  not  the  temper  of  the  genuine 
disciple,  who,  while  recognising  the  incomparable 
freshness  and  aroma  of  the  few  sayings  picked  out  by 
such  writers,  yet  prefers  the  entire  record,  believing 
that  the  whole  is  greater  than  the  parts,  and  that  even 
those  members  of  the  body  which  seem  to  be  more 
feeble  are  necessary. 

The  sayings  alluded  to  would  embrace  such  as  the 


312 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


Golden  Rule,  the  exquisite  word  about  a  cup  of  cold 
water  given  in  the  name  of  Jesus,  the  parable  of  the 
Good  Samaritan,  the  address  of  the  Judge  at  the  Last 
Day  to  those  on  His  right  hand,  and  the  like.  As 
has  been  already  hinted,  there  is  a  group  of  these 
in  the  report  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  in  the 
sixth  chapter  of  St.  Luke :  “  But  I  say  unto  you 
which  hear,  Love  your  enemies,  do  good  to  them 
which  hate  you,  bless  them  that  curse  you,  and  pray 
for  them  which  despitefully  use  you.  And  unto 
him  that  smiteth  thee  on  the  one  cheek  offer  also 
the  other ;  and  him  that  taketh  away  thy  cloak 
forbid  not  to  take  thy  coat  also.  Give  to  every 
one  that  asketh  of  thee,  and  of  him  that  taketh 
away  thy  goods  ask  them  not  again.  For,  if  ye 
love  them  which  love  you,  what  thank  have  ye  ? 
for  sinners  also  love  those  that  love  them.  And, 
if  ye  do  good  to  them  who  do  good  to  you,  what 
thank  have  ye  ?  for  sinners  also  do  even  the  same. 
And,  if  ye  lend  to  them  of  whom  ye  hope  to 
receive,  what  thank  have  ye  ?  for  sinners  also  lend 
to  sinners,  to  receive  as  much  again.  But  love  ye 
your  enemies,  and  do  good,  and  lend,  hoping  for 
nothing  again  ;  and  your  reward  shall  be  great,  and 
ye  shall  be  the  children  of  the  Highest,  for  He  is 
kind  unto  the  unthankful  and  the  evil  ” 

In  this  class  of  the  sayings  of  our  Lord  there 
is  a  tone  of  exaggeration  by  no  means  easy  to 
account  for.  There  are  sayings  which  not  only 


THE  THINGS  OF  MAN 


3!3 


carry  on  the  face  of  them  an  air  of  absurdity  but 
stand  in  open  contradiction  to  the  conduct  of  Jesus 
as  reported  by  the  Evangelists.  Thus,  in  one  place 
He  appears  to  forbid  the  taking  of  an  oath  in 
any  circumstances,  yet,  on  His  trial,  He  made 
no  scruple  about  the  form  of  oath  administered  to 
Him  by  the  high-priest.  In  one  of  the  verses  just 
quoted  He  demands  that,  when  struck  on  the  one 
cheek,  we  should  turn  the  other  also ;  but,  when 
struck  Himself,  at  the  bidding  of  the  high-priest, 
by  a  minion  of  the  court  during  His  trial,  so  far 
from  turning  the  other  cheek,  He  hurled  at  the 
official  who  was  profaning  the  seat  of  justice  an 
indignant  protest.  In  another  verse  just  cited,  He 
commands  to  give  to  everyone  who  asks,  but 
nothing  was  more  characteristic  in  His  own  behaviour 
than  the  resolution  with  which  He  went  His  own 
way,  turning  a  deaf  ear  to  those  who  pestered  Him 
with  requests,  as  if  they  knew  better  than  Himself 
the  course  which  he  ought  to  pursue  ;  His  fellow- 
townsmen  thus  being  balked  in  their  thirst  for 
miracles,  even  His  own  mother  not  escaping  sharp 
reproof  for  such  interference,  and  His  foremost 
disciple  being  dismissed  with  the  rebuke,  “  Get  thee 
behind  Me,  Satan.” 

In  the  interpretation  of  such  paradoxes  Count 
Tolstoy  has  taken  the  bull  by  the  horns,  not  only 
accepting  every  word  literally,  but  even  giving  to 
some  of  them  an  application  more  drastic  than 


3*4 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


appears  on  the  surface.  Thus,  the  commandment, 
“  Judge  not,”  is  not  only  taken  literally  as  forbidding 
all  criticism  by  private  individuals  of  the  conduct 
of  others,  but  applied  to  all  forms  of  legal  procedure, 
which  he  would  totally  suppress.  He  narrates  how, 
at  the  crisis  of  his  own  life,  the  saying  in  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mount,  “  Resist  not  evil,”  dawned  upon  him 
as  the  master-utterance  of  the  whole  Bible,  the  con¬ 
sistent  application  of  which  all  round  would  remedy 
the  wrongs  of  society  and  effect  the  perfection  of 
human  character  ;  and,  with  this  key,  he  goes  through 
the  entire  Sermon,  intrepreting  it  as  a  manifesto 
of  anarchy.  While,  however,  the  attitude  of  this 
thinker  to  the  existing  order  of  society  no  doubt 
receives  explanation  and  perhaps,  to  a  certain  extent, 
justification  from  the  maladministration  of  the 
Russian  government,  from  which,  in  recent  years, 
the  veil  has  been  so  ruthlessly  drawn,  we  must  not 
allow  ourselves  to  be  blinded  by  respect  for  the 
man  to  the  insuperable  barriers  which  his  teaching, 
if  accepted  as  the  genuine  version  of  the  Gospel  of 
the  New  Testament,  would  erect  between  Jesus  and 
the  intelligence  of  the  world.  Such  a  literal  inter¬ 
pretation  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  would  rob 
it  of  all  poetry  and  transmute  the  Preacher  into 
a  prosaic  martinet. 

Wendt,  in  his  Teaching  of  Jesus ,  believes  himself 
to  have  discovered  a  principle  for  explaining  such 
difficult  sayings,  which  he  thus  formulates:  “In  the 


THE  THINGS  OF  MAN 


3i5 


cases  which  He  chooses  for  examples,  He  abstracts 
from  all  such  circumstances  and  considerations  as 
prevent  the  general  rule  from  being  clearly  seen, 
although,  when  closely  studied,  these  do  not,  in 
point  of  fact,  invalidate  or  limit  the  application  of 
the  rule.”  To  this  principle  he  subjoins  the  obser¬ 
vation,  that  Jesus  was  led  to  adopt  this  mode  of 
emphasis  by  the  casuistical  rmctices  of  the  scribes, 
which  He  abhorred.  These  were  wont  to  accumulate 
difficult  and  exceptional  cases  for  the  purpose  of 
evaporating  the  spirit  of  general  commandments, 
whereas  Jesus  did  the  same  thing  with  the  intention 
of  showing  that,  even  when  the  fulfilment  of  the 
letter  of  the  law  might  not  be  practicable,  it  might 
still  be  possible  to  carry  out  its  spirit,  provided  the 
heart  were  possessed  with  the  love  of  man  and  the 
love  of  God.* 

I  should  be  inclined  to  ascribe  the  phenomenon 
rather  to  a  peculiarity  of  disposition  in  Jesus  Himself, 
and  to  the  unconscious  tact  of  a  supreme  teacher 
In  the  fourteenth  chapter  of  the  Gospel  according 
to  St.  Luke  there  has  been  preserved  an  account  of 
His  table-talk  at  the  board  of  a  Pharisee,  who  had 
invited  Him  to  dinner.  Some  of  His  remarks  on 
this  occasion,  if  understood  literally  and  prosaically, 
would  not  only  be  in  bad  taste,  as  seeming  to  find 
fault  with  domestic  arrangements  of  which  He  was 
at  the  time  taking  advantage,  but  would  be  the 

*  Pp.  96  ft. 


3 16 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


reverse  of  good  advice  from  a  moral  point  of  view ; 
for,  as  Calvin  observes*:  “To  condemn  the  feasts 
which  friends  and  relatives  give  to  one  another  would 
be  to  take  away  from  men  a  portion  of  their  human 
nature ;  and  to  exclude  our  friends  from  the  hospit¬ 
able  board,  and  give  access  to  it  only  to  strangers, 
would  be  a  mark  not  so  much  of  austerity  as  of 
barbarity.”  But  the  appearance  of  harshness  vanishes, 
if  we  conceive  Him  to  have  uttered  the  words,  as 
would  have  been  fit  and  natural  on  such  an  occasion, 
with  a  kindly  smile.  By  people  incapable  of  under¬ 
standing  Him  the  tradition  has  been  invented  that 
He  was  never  seen  to  laugh,  but  there  are  not  a 
few  of  His  dark  sayings  which  become  luminous 
the  moment  we  admit  the  notion  that  He  may  have 
uttered  them  in  a  tone  of  pleasantry  ;  and  this  is  a 
case  in  point,  because  the  Speaker  lightly  and  archly 
satirises  the  commercial  spirit  in  hospitality,  when 
entertainers  give  only  to  receive  as  much  again, 
while  He  puts  the  signature  of  His  commendation 
on  the  true  hospitality,  which  gives  out  of  an  over¬ 
flowing  heart  without  thought  of  recompense. 

I  venture  to  think  that  the  ordinary  reader,  having 
a  little  humour  in  his  composition,  is  not  confused 
by  these  peculiarities  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus.  }  He 
perceives  that  what  is  described  is  an  ideal ;  it  is 
with  the  direction  in  which  everyone’s  face  is  turned 
that  the  Teacher  is  concerned  rather  than  with  the 


*  Commentary ,  in  loo. 


THE  THINGS  OF  MAN 


Ml 

several  steps  of  the  journey  ;  it  is  not  to  slaves  of 
the  letter  He  is  addressing  Himself,  but  to  lovers 
of  the  spirit.  In  short,  it  is  the  love  of  man  He  is 
teaching,  not  an  array  of  new  commandments  in¬ 
tended  to  rival  the  endless  traditions  of  the  scribes. 
This  we  must  hold  even  if  it  leaves  it  open  to  those 
so  disposed  to  evaporate  the  precepts  of  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mount  into  mere  counsels  of  perfection,  having 
nothing  to  do  with  the  regulation  of  ordinary  exist¬ 
ence — a  course  not  infrequently  taken  even  by  those 
who  revere  the  Great  Teacher.* 

As  has  been  remarked  above,  the  author  of  Ecce 
Homo  reduces  the  sayings  of  Jesus  with  which  we 
are  at  present  dealing  to  five  laws  ;  and  he  sometimes 
brings  down  the  number  to  three.  Indeed,  they 
might  be  reduced  to  one.  If  all  the  sayings  of  this 
sort  be  examined,  they  will  be  found  to  express,  in 
every  form,  the  Law  of  Giving.  It  is  as  if  Jesus  set 
Himself  to  contradict  the  advice  of  the  natural  heart, 
which  is  always  counselling  to  acquire  and  to  keep. 
Self  is  the  centre  to  which  the  thoughts  and  the 
efforts  of  men  all  run  ;  Jesus,  on  the  contrary, 
directed  all  thought  and  effort  to  run  from  this 

*  Dr.  Sanday,  in  his  famous  article  on  Jesus  Christ  in 
Hastings’  Dictionary  of  the  Bible ,  speaks  of  the  morality  of  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount  as  only  fitted  for  individuals  or,  at  most, 
a  limited  circle  of  the  initiated,  instead  of  being  intended  for  the 
great  world,  which  leads  one  to  ask :  Who  is,  then,  the  legislator 
for  the  world,  if  it  be  not  Jesus? 


3*8 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


centre  in  the  direction  of  others.  The  essence  of 
sin  is  selfishness  ;  and  Jesus  wished  to  counteract 
this  most  native  tendency  of  human  nature.  By 
getting  and  keeping,  men  seek  their  own  happiness  ; 
but  they  would  consult  it  more  by  doing  the  reverse ; 
for,  as  He  said  in  the  one  great  saying  of  His 
found  in  the  New  Testament  outside  the  Gospels, 
“  it  is  more  blessed  to  give  than  to  receive.”  Every¬ 
one  grudges  what  his  neighbour  gets,  imagining  his 
own  happiness  to  be  jeopardised  thereby ;  but,  if 
he  could  be  persuaded  to  act  on  the  opposite 
assumption,  he  would  find  himself  overloaded  with 
the  means  of  happiness ;  for  others,  surprised  and 
astonished  at  his  benevolence,  would  be  melted  in 
turn,  and  would  radiate  back  the  warmth  received 
from  him :  “  Give,  and  it  shall  be  given  unto  you  : 
good  measure,  pressed  down  and  shaken  together 
and  running  over,  shall  men  give  into  your  bosom.” 
Usually  this  is  cited  as  a  great  promise  of  divine 
giving,  but,  in  reality,  as  can  be  seen  at  a  glance, 
it  is  a  promise  of  what  men  will  do  under  the 
genial  influence  of  unselfish  treatment.  The  earth 
would  be  changed  into  a  paradise  if,  instead  of  hating, 
human  beings  loved  ;  if,  instead  of  speaking  evil  of 
one  another,  they  spoke  only  good ;  if,  instead  of 
grasping  and  holding,  they  gave  away.  It  seems 
so  simple  that  one  often  asks  in  perplexity  why 
they  do  not  do  it.  That  is  a  deep  mystery,  but  it 
takes  us  outside  the  sphere  of  Ethics.  That  Jesus 


THE  THINGS  OF  MAN 


319 


not  only  knew  why,  but  knew,  besides,  the  only 
way  in  which  this  radical  evil  can  be  cured,  is 
proved  by  His  great  saying :  “  Freely  ye  have  re- 
ceived,  freely  give.”  In  the  same  way  as  Christian 
forgiveness  is  only  possible  to  the  forgiven,  so  is 
Christian  giving  only  possible  in  proportion  as  any- 
one  has  experienced  the  infinite  giving  of  God. 

“Ye  have  the  poor  with  you  always,”  said  our 
Lord  ;  and  this  is  a  prophecy  which  has  not  failed 
of  fulfilment  Every  generation  has  been  confronted 
by  the  problem  of  poverty  in  a  form  peculiar  to 
itself.  The  form  of  it  which  the  present  generation 
has  to  face  is  not  less  formidable  than  that  of  any 
preceding  age  ;  for  the  problem  of  poverty,  in  our 
day,  is,  at  the  same  time,  the  problem  of  the  city, 
the  problem  of  housing,  the  problem  of  unemploy¬ 
ment.  Some  would  add,  that  it  is,  more  than  any 
of  these,  the  problem  of  drunkenness  ;  there  being 
comparatively  little  dire  poverty  unconnected  with 
this  cause.  Others  would  contend  that  this  is  a 
partial  view,  drunkenness  itself  being  not  only  a 
cause  but  a  consequence — the  consequence  of  in¬ 
salubrious  dwellings,  of  insufficient  wages,  of  the 
hopelessness  of  multitudes,  who,  seeing  no  prospect 
of  rising  out  of  the  misery  in  which  they  are  sunk, 
plunge  into  intoxication  to  forget  their  sorrows.  The 
facts  are  appalling  and  even  maddening  ;  and,  for 
the  sake  of  the  children  especially,  who  have  to 
grow  up  in  an  environment  of  squalor  and  riot,  the 


320 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


call  is  loud  and  urgent  for  the  betterment  of  social 
conditions.  But,  if  Jesus  said,  “Woe  to  you  that 
are  rich,”  this  proves  that  the  mere  improvement 
of  outward  conditions  would  not  necessarily  be  a 
solution  of  the  problem  ;  for  the  most  fortunate  had 
no  more  attained  the  true  end  of  life  than  the  most 
unfortunate :  on  the  contrary,  their  failure  to  do  so 
was  even  more  palpable.  Efforts  to  transfer  money 
and  property  from  one  set  of  hands  to  another  may 
be  inspired  by  the  same  passions  as  have  blinded 
the  present  holders  to  their  own  highest  good,  and 
may  be  accompanied  with  injustice  as  extreme  as  has 
ever  been  manifested  by  the  rich  and  the  powerful.* 
It  is  no  novelty  in  the  world  to  see  any  class,  whether 
high  or  low,  standing  on  its  rights  and  clamouring 
for  its  privileges ;  but  the  novelty  and  the  miracle 
would  be  to  see  one  forgetting  its  own  claims  and 
vindicating  the  rights  of  others.  By  the  promptings 
of  the  natural  heart,  by  the  spirit  of  the  world,  and 

*  The  fallacy  in  many  amateur  disquisitions  on  economic 
subjects,  as  well  as  in  many  pulpit  utterances  on  Socialism,  is 
the  assumption  that  employers  of  labour  could  pay  better  wages 
to  their  workpeople  if  they  were  so  disposed.  But  many,  if 
they  did  so,  would  be  employers  of  labour  no  longer  ;  because 
they  would  be  bankrupt.  Those  who  are  earning  large,  steady 
and  increasing  profits  cannot  be  urged  too  much  to  consider 
the  claims  of  those  in  their  employment  to  a  more  generous 
share ;  but  multitudes  of  employers  are  carrying  on  business  in 
the  face  of  keen  competition,  on  a  narrow  margin  ot  profit ; 
and  any  considerable  increase  of  their  wages-bill  would  simply 
throw  them  out  of  business  altogether. 


THE  THINGS  OF  MAN 


321 


by  the  eloquence  of  many  an  innovator,  man  is  urged 
to  say  to  his  neighbour,  “  What  is  thine  is  mine  ”  ; 
but  Jesus  prompts  him  to  reverse  the  statement  and 
say  to  his  neighbour,  “  What  is  mine  is  thine  ”  ;  and 
St.  Paul  was  able  to  describe  the  primitive  Christians 
“  as  poor,  yet  making  many  rich ;  as  having  nothing, 
yet  possessing  all  things.” 

It  is  not  uncommon  to  try  to  commit  Jesus  as 
a  partisan  either  for  or  against  Socialism  ;  but  His 
words  elude  the  attempt.  Thus,  the  case,  already 
quoted,  in  which  He  refused  to  be  made  a  judge  or 
a  divider  between  two  brethren  seems  to  separate 
a  large  section  of  human  life  from  the  religious  sphere 
and  hand  it  over  to  the  control  of  the  civil  magistrate, 
and  it  is  often  quoted  as  a  reason  why  ministers  and 
Church-courts  should  not  meddle  with  certain  sub¬ 
jects.  But  how  easy  it  is  to  retort,  that  this  is  only 
a  form  of  the  plea  of  the  priest  and  the  Levite,  to 
excuse  themselves  from  doing  anything  for  the  man 
fallen  amongst  thieves  !  It  is  well  that  the  words 
of  Jesus  do  not  settle  such  great  issues,  apart  from 
the  accumulating  knowledge  of  the  race  and  the 
growth  of  Christian  sentiment.  He  will  not  spare 
us  either  the  tasks  of  science  or  the  discipline  of 
sympathy  ;  and  it  is  safe  to  suspect  the  argument 
when  either  all  the  logic  or  all  the  sentiment  appears 
to  be  on  our  side.  There  are  two  opposite  maxims 
in  the  teaching  of  Jesus — “He  that  is  not  with  us 
is  against  us  ”  and  “  He  that  is  not  against  us  is 


21 


322 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


for  us  ” — which  seem  to  be  contradictory ;  but  the 
one  is  a  safe  guide  for  judging  ourselves,  and  the 
other  is  equally  useful  in  judging  others ;  and  this 
may  supply  a  hint  for  interpreting  the  apparently 
Contradictory  sayings  of  our  Lord  on  this  subject. 

If,  now,  we  inquire  what  is  to  be  given,  the  first 
answer  which  springs  to  the  lips  is,  alms  to  the  poor. 
And  for  this  there  is  plenty  of  support  in  the  record. 
Though  our  Lord  was  Himself  so  poor  in  earthly 
goods  that  He  could  say,  “Foxes  have  holes,  and 
the  birds  of  the  air  have  nests,  but  the  Son  of  man 
hath  not  where  to  lay  His  head,”  still  a  bag  was 
kept  in  His  company,  out  of  which  relief  was  dis¬ 
pensed  to  the  indigent.  Even  when  reproving  the 
giving  of  alms  in  a  wrong  way,  He  hinted  that  they 
ought  to  be  given  in  a  right  way — “  But,  when  thou 
doest  alms,  let  not  thy  left  hand  know  what  thy 
right  hand  doeth.”  When  exposing  the  ceremonies 
of  the  Pharisees,  He  said  in  so  many  words:  “But 
rather  give  alms  of  such  things  as  ye  have,  and, 
behold,  all  things  are  clean  unto  you.”  The  most 
striking  case  of  all  is  that  of  the  rich  youth  whom 
He  told  to  go  and  sell  all  he  possessed  and  give 
to  the  poor,  and  then  to  come  and  be  His  follower. 
It  is  well  known  how,  in  subsequent  centuries,  this 
saying  was  used  as  the  great  lever  of  the  monastic 
movement.  Those  who  forsook  the  world  for  the 
convent  and  those  called  to  ecclesiastical  office  began 


THE  THINGS  OF  MAN 


323 


their  new  career  by  divesting  themselves  as  quickly 
as  possible  of  all  earthly  possessions.  But  there 
were  not  wanting  voices  at  the  time  giving  warning 
of  the  breach  of  duty  which  this  might  imply,  and 
the  experience  of  history  has  passed  sentence  on 
the  whole  experiment  of  which  this  was  a  mani¬ 
festation.  To  divest  oneself  at  once  of  all  property 
may  be  far  easier  than  to  expend  it  wisely  and  well, 
but  the  latter  may  be  the  use  of  a  talent  received 
from  above  and  involving  lifelong  responsibility. 
The  effect  on  the  receivers,  also,  must  be  considered  : 
when  money  was  distributed  wholesale,  it  is  not  likely 
to  have  done  much  good,  while  it  may  often  have 
done  harm.  The  rich  young  man’s  must  have  been 
a  special  case,  in  which  some  peculiarity  of  dis¬ 
position  or  circumstances  justified  the  treatment, 
and  such  cases  may  occur  in  any  age ;  but  the 
purpose  of  the  Saviour  was  not  to  lay  down  the 
path  prescribed  for  him  as  a  rule  for  all,  but  to 
emphasize  the  supreme  value  of  the  blessings  of 
the  kingdom  of  heaven,  to  attain  which  any  sacrifice 
is  justifiable. 

Money  is  not,  however,  the  only  thing,  or  even  the 
chief  thing,  to  be  given  away.  Though  Jesus  Himself 
gave  money,  He  gave  far  oftener  sympathy,  health, 
relief  from  disablement.  Wherever  He  went,  He 
was  distributing  such  blessings  on  every  hand,  re¬ 
storing  to  the  diseased  and  deformed  the  power  of 
earning  money  for  themselves.  In  the  Gospel  of 


324 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


St.  Mark  especially,  our  Lord’s  entire  earthly  career 
is  represented  as  one  manifold  distribution  of  such 
gifts.  In  the  same  spirit  He  said  to  the  Twelve, 
as  He  sent  them  forth  :  “  Heal  the  sick,  cleanse  the 
lepers,  raise  the  dead,  cast  out  devils.”  At  the 
present  moment  the  belief  begins  to  prevail  in  many 
quarters  that,  had  the  Church  continued  faithful,  she 
would  never  have  lost  a  large  power  of  overcoming 
disease  by  faith  and  prayer,  and  of  communicating 
even  to  the  body  a  more  abundant  life.  At  any 
rate,  the  flourishing  of  medical  science  under  Christian 
auspices  has  placed  in  the  hands  of  all  desirous  of 
assisting  the  poor  and  needy  the  means  of  relieving 
the  victims  of  disease  to  an  extent  which,  in  former 
ages,  could  only  have  been  accomplished  by  miracle ; 
and  medical  missions,  both  home  and  foreign,  are  the 
most  indubitable  modern  imitation  of  the  daily  life  of 
Jesus. 

Even  this,  however,  does  not  nearly  exhaust  the 
range  of  the  giving  recommended  by  Jesus.  It  was 
not  only  upon  the  poor  that  He  directed  the  fulness 
of  the  unselfish  heart  to  flow  forth.  Unlike  His  fore¬ 
runner,  who  avoided  the  habitations  of  men  and 
abode  in  the  wilderness,  Jesus  was  a  friend  of  the 
forms  of  social  intercourse  which  tend  to  expansive¬ 
ness  and  charity.  His  first  miracle  was  wrought  at 
a  wedding.  He  accepted  offers  of  hospitality  with 
equal  freedom  from  Pharisee  and  publican,  and  so 
unconstrained  was  His  conduct  on  such  occasions 


THE  THINGS  OF  MAN 


/•> 

j>-o 


as  to  draw  down  on  Himself  the  criticism  of  the 
sour-visaged  and  narrow-minded,  who  called  Him 
“  a  friend  of  publicans  and  sinners.”  As  has  been 
mentioned  above,  there  has  been  preserved  in  Holy 
Writ  an  account  of  His  table-talk  on  one  such 
occasion,  from  which  it  is  manifest  how  fully  He 
appreciated  the  power  of  social  intercourse  to 
obliterate  prejudice  and  suspicion  and  to  unloose 
the  kindlier  instincts  of  the  heart.  Even  courtesies 
still  more  humble  were  not  beneath  His  notice,  for 
He  said  :  “  And,  if  ye  salute  your  brethren  only, 
what  reward  have  ye  ?  Do  not  even  the  publicans 
so?”  And,  when  sending  out  the  Twelve,  He  took 
the  trouble  to  say  to  them,  “  And,  when  ye  come  into 
an  house,  salute  it.” 

In  the  nature  of  the  case,  however,  the  most 
precious  gift  that  can  be  offered  to  men  is  the  Gospel. 
Of  this  Jesus  proved  His  own  appreciation  when, 
in  reply  to  the  messengers  of  the  Baptist,  He  first 
enumerated  the  works  of  benevolence  He  was  en¬ 
gaged  in  performing,  and  then  added,  as  the  crown 
and  climax,  “  And  to  the  poor  the  Gospel  is 
preached.”  It  was  the  pressure  of  the  Word  within 
His  soul  that  drove  Him  forth  from  Nazareth,  to 
exchange  the  occupation  of  a  carpenter  for  that  of 
a  preacher  ;  and,  in  the  description  of  the  mission 
of  a  prophet  which  He  read  in  the  synagogue  of 
Nazareth  and  appropriated  to  Himself,  we  learn  the 
kind  of  passion  which,  at  the  beginning  of  His 


326 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


ministry,  was  burning  in  His  soul.  It  was  this 
internal  pressure  which  drove  Him  from  one  scene 
of  sin  and  misery  to  another,  and  made  Him  say, 
“  I  must  preach  the  Gospel  to  other  cities  also  ;  for 
therefore  am  I  sent.”  In  such  parables  as  those  of  the 
fifteenth  of  St.  Luke  we  feel  the  hunger  and  thirst  for 
the  salvation  of  men  which  underlay  His  activity, 
while  in  those  of  the  thirteenth  of  St.  Matthew  we 
see  His  estimate  of  the  results.  His  personal  ministry 
was  confined  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of 
Israel  ;  but,  while  acquiescing  in  the  will  of  His 
Father  in  this  arrangement,  he  turned  wistfully  to 
the  regions  beyond  and  anticipated  the  time  when 
the  Gospel  would  be  preached  in  the  whole  world.* 
The  Twelve  He  called  from  the  very  first  “to  be 
fishers  of  men,”  thus,  with  His  ready  use  of  metaphor, 
causing  their  preceding  experience  to  illuminate  that 
which  was  still  to  come.  The  wrords  in  which  He 
empowered  them  to  perform  works  of  mercy  on 
men’s  bodies  have  been  quoted  above ;  but  these 
are  preceded  in  the  record  by  the  more  solemn 
words,  “  As  ye  go,  say,  The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at 
hand.”  In  the  tenth  chapter  of  St.  Matthew  and 
the  tenth  of  St.  Luke  respectively  have  been  pre¬ 
served  the  addresses  of  instruction  with  which  He 
sent  forth  the  Twelve  and  the  Seventy  ;  and  these 
are  the  prototypes  of  all  the  exhortations  with  which 
the  messengers  of  peace  have  been  sent  forth,  in 


*  Compare  J.  Clark  Murray,  Christian  Ethics ,  pp.  109  ff. 


THE  THINGS  OF  MAN 


327 


the  centuries  since,  as  ministers  or  missionaries.  The 
wider  work  which  Providence  did  not  permit  Him  to  do 
in  person  was  to  be  undertaken  by  these  objects  of  His 
training,  and,  before  He  parted  from  them,  He 
showed  how  He  conceived  this  task,  when  He  said  : 
“  Go  ye  into  all  the  world  and  preach  the  Gospel  to 
every  creature.  .  .  .  And,  lo,  I  am  with  you  alway, 
even  unto  the  end  of  the  world.  Amen.” 

The  Twelve  and  the  Seventy  were  officially  called 
to  the  work  of  evangelization  ;  and  it  may  have  been 
in  view  of  the  need  there  would  always  be  for  men 
to  devote  their  whole  time  and  strength  to  the 
spread  of  His  kingdom  that  Jesus  said,  “  The  harvest 
truly  is  plenteous,  but  the  labourers  are  few  ;  pray 
ye  therefore  the  Lord  of  the  harvest,  that  He  would 
send  forth  labourers  into  His  harvest.”  But,  while 
official  consecration  may  quicken  and  sustain  the 
impulses  from  which  evangelization  springs,  these 
do  not  belong  solely  to  a  consecrated  class,  but  are 
native  to  the  spiritual  life  itself.  The  desire  to 
communicate  the  gift  of  salvation  is  natural  to  all 
who  have  received  it  themselves ;  and,  the  more 
any  are  imbued  with  the  elementary  convictions  of 
Jesus,  such  as  the  value  of  the  soul,  the  love  of  God 
for  the  lost,  and  the  hopes  and  fears  of  the  life  to 
come,  the  more  must  they  hunger  for  the  awakening 
of  their  fellow-creatures  and  rejoice  with  the  angels 
over  sinners  repenting.  It  has  been  the  greatest 
error  of  Christendom  to  make  the  work  of  evangeliza- 


328 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


tion  the  perquisite  of  a  class  ;  and  the  Gospel 
will  never  really  conquer  the  world  till  all  to  whom 
the  message  of  Christ  has  come  with  power  begin 
to  give  to  others  the  words  of  life  eternal. 

Though  little  dwelt  upon  in  systems  of  Ethics, 
this  obligation  to  evangelize  lay  nearer  the  heart 
of  Jesus  than  most  of  those  features  which  have 
been  put  forward  as  the  leading  characteristics  of 
His  teaching.  And,  even  from  the  point  of  view 
of  benevolence,  its  virtue  goes  deeper  than  any 
other  service  that  can  be  rendered  by  man  to  man. 
While  ordinary  benevolence  may  feed  the  hungry 
and  clothe  the  naked,  evangelization  enables  the 
poor  to  feed  and  clothe  themselves ;  because  it 
touches  the  springs  of  manhood  and  self-respect 
and  transforms  the  whole  condition  from  within ; 
and,  while  it  does  so  on  the  small  scale  in  the 
individual  and  the  family,  it  does  so  no  less  on  the 
great  scale  in  the  nation  or  the  race ;  for  the  whole 
course  of  history  ever  since  the  Advent  goes  to 
prove  that,  wherever  the  light  of  the  Gospel  shines, 
the  blessings  of  civilisation  abound  also.  Those, 
therefore,  in  whom  the  spirit  of  Christianity  prevails 
to  such  a  degree  as  to  overflow  upon  others  are 
both  the  true  disciples  of  Jesus  and  the  true  bene¬ 
factors  of  humanity ;  and  they  hold  in  their  keeping 
the  secret  of  Jesus. 


THE  FAMILY 


Matt.  v.  27-30,31,32. 

vii.  7- 1 1. 

viii.  21,  22. 

ix.  14-26. 

x.  21,  34-37. 

xii.  46-50. 

xiii.  53-58. 
xv.  4-6,  19. 

xix.  3-22. 

xxii.  1-14,23-33. 
xxiii.  14. 

xxiv.  19-38. 

xxv.  1-13. 


Mark  i.  29-31. 

ii.  19,  20. 

iii.  21,  25,  31- 

35- 

v.  19,  21-43. 

vi.  3,  4- 

vii.  10-12,  21, 
24-30. 

x.  2-12.  13-16, 

19- 

xii.  1S-27,  41- 

44- 

xiii.  12,  17. 


Luke  iv.  38,  39. 

vii.  11-16. 

viii.  19-21,  39, 
41-56. 

ix.  4. 

x.  5. 

xi. 7,  17,  27,  37. 

xii.  13,  52,  53. 

xiv.  1-35. 

xv.  1-32. 

xvi.  18,  27,  28. 

xvii.  3,  4. 
xviii.  1-8, 20,29. 

xix.  44. 

xx.  27-38,  47. 

xxi.  1-4,  16,  23. 
xxiii.  28-31. 


CHAPTER  XV. 


THE  FAMILY 

SIX-AND-THIRTY  years  after  the  appearance 
of  Ecce  Homo  there  was  published  another 
exposition  of  the  ethical  teaching  of  Christ  in  the 
English  language  not  unworthy  to  be  named  in 
the  same  breath  with  that  famous  book.  It  was 
from  the  pen  of  Professor  Peabody,  of  Harvard, 
and  it  bears  the  title,  Jesus  Christ  and  the  Social 
Question .  In  one  respect  it  exhibits  a  close  re¬ 
semblance  to  its  predecessor  ;  because  the  method 
of  exposition  is  by  constant  comparison  with  a 
rival  system,  with  all  the  ramifications  of  which 
the  author  is  intimately  acquainted.  Only  the 
literature  made  use  of  by  Professor  Peabody,  for 
this  illustration  of  contrast,  is  extremely  different 
from  that  on  which  the  author  of  Ecce  Homo  fixed 
attention  ;  for,  while  the  latter  used  for  his  purpose 
the  remains  of  classical  antiquity,  the  other  makes 
an  exhaustive  comparison  of  the  Christian  ethical 
system  with  that  of  modern  Socialism.  Perhaps  in 
both  cases  a  carping  critic  might  complain  that 
the  author  betrays  a  more  comprehensive  knowledge 


331 


332 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


of  the  system  with  which  he  compares  the  scheme 
of  Christianity  than  with  the  latter  itself ;  *  but 
there  can  be  no  doubt  in  this  newer  case,  any  more 
than  in  the  earlier,  of  the  utility  of  the  method  ; 
and  the  interest  at  present  felt  in  Socialism  makes 
the  whole  discussion  eminently  fresh  and  timely.! 

The  point  at  which  Professor  Peabody  seems 
to  feel,  and  his  readers  also  will  generally  feel,  the 
most  painful  collision  between  the  Socialistic  and 
the  Christian  doctrines  is  the  family.  The  author 
begins  by  showing  how  the  sacredness  of  this 
institution  has  been  shaken  in  his  own  country  by 
the  excessive  prevalence  of  divorce,  which  has  been 


*  It  is  in  the  companion  volume,  Jesus  Christ  and  the 
Christian  Character ,  that  the  limitations  of  this  able  and 
delightful  author’s  theological  position  are  most  apparent.  The 
Christian  Ethic  is  an  ethic  of  motive — this  is  its  peculiar 
quality — and  there  are  motives  springing  from  belief  in  the 
transcendental  history  of  the  Son  of  God  which  have  given  rise 
to  the  heroisms  of  Christianity,  such  as  those  of  its  martyrs 
and  missionaries.  It  is  historically  certain  that  those  who  have 
by  such  acts  of  faith  made  the  modern  Christian  world  what  it 
is  put  the  full  testimony  of  the  Church  into  the  confession,  “  He 
loved  me,  and  gave  Himself  for  me  ” ;  and  it  has  still  to  be  seen 
whether  those  who  have  taken  out  of  this  testimony  the  major 
part  of  its  contents  are  capable  of  similar  performances.  But 
it  is  not  gracious  to  be  grumbling  that  an  author  who  has  given 
so  much  in  such  an  admirable  manner  has  not  given  more. 

t  In  Newman  Smyth’s  deliverances  on  the  Social  Question, 
Christian  Ethics ,  pt.  ii.,  c.  4,  there  is  also  a  maturity  rarely  met 
with  in  utterances  on  the  subject  on  this  side ;  suggesting  that, 
on  that  side  of  the  Ocean,  they  have  had  to  reflect  on  this 
subject  for  a  much  longer  time  than  we. 


THE  FAMILY 


333 


growing  from  decade  to  decade,  reasons  more  and 
more  frivolous  being  allowed  by  the  courts  to 
disrupt  the  bonds  of  marriage,  until,  as  I  see  from 
the  very  latest  statistics  just  published,  there  is 
now  one  divorce  to  every  twelve  marriages.  Even 
in  the  face  of  such  facts  Professor  Peabody 
endeavours  not  to  despair  of  his  native  country, 
pointing  out  that  it  is  only  a  minority  of  the 
population  which  has  been  thus  vitiated  ;  the 
majority,  on  the  contrary,  being  sound,  and  knowing 
of  such  practices  only  as  dwellers  far  inland  may 
hear  from  a  distance  the  tumult  which  is  disturbing 
the  ocean ;  and  it  is  reassuring  to  learn  that  an 
observer  so  sane  and  well-informed  is  able  to  take 
so  sanguine  a  view  of  the  situation.  He  proceeds 
to  specify,  as  another  disposing  cause,  the  recent 
course  of  scientific  investigation  into  the  origins 
of  marriage.  The  natural  history  of  the  changes 
through  which  this  relation  has  passed  in  the 
obscure  early  history  of  the  race  is  apt  to  breed 
the  belief  that  it  is  a  mere  convention,  which, 
having  altered  its  form  many  times  already,  may 
alter  it  again  to  an  indefinite  extent.*  In  this 
spirit  the  speculations  on  primitive  conditions  of 
Westermarck,  McLennan  and  others  have  been 


*  Balch,  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  Christian  Ethics ,  p.  203, 
says,  perhaps  rather  sanguinely,  “Whatever  be  the  prehistoric 
origin  of  morality,  its  authority  is  independent  of  its  method  of 
genesis.” 


334 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


utilised  by  those  who  look  upon  the  sacredness 
attaching  to  marriage  in  the  popular  mind  as  one 
of  the  principal  obstacles  standing  in  the  way  of 
the  new  era  which  they  hope  to  introduce ;  and  thus 
has  been  generated  what  is  held  by  such  to  be  the 
true  and  the  modern  doctrine  on  the  subject :  the 
family  is,  like  the  State  and  the  Church,  merely  a 
venerable  figment,  the  underlying  conception  of 
which  cannot  stand  the  light  of  scientific  investi¬ 
gation  ;  and  all  three — State,  Church  and  family — 
are  destined  to  be  swept  away  together. 

This  is  the  voice  of  Continental  Socialism,  to  the 
literature  of  which  the  author  gives  references 
which  leave  no  doubt  that  beliefs  of  this  kind  are 
being  diffused  by  propagandists  among  the  labouring 
classes  of  such  countries  as  France  and  Germany. 
In  our  own  country,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  worthy 
of  remark,  not  a  few  of  the  spokesmen  of  Socialism 
have  repudiated  this  creed  as  regards  the  family. 
I  have  heard  Stoecker,  the  late  originator  of  the 
Christian  Socialist  party  in  Germany,  declare  his 
conviction  that  the  atheism  of  the  German  working 
man  was  extremely  superficial,  being  little  more 
than  a  fashion  of  speech  adopted  from  leaders  ;  and 
it  may  be  that  the  hostility  to  the  family  is  no 
deeper.  At  all  events,  Englishmen  are  swayed  far 
more  than  either  Frenchmen  or  Germans  by  practical 
considerations  ;  and  it  would  not  be  wise  to  held 
those  who  profess  socialistic  opinions  to  all  the 


THE  FAMILY 


335 


consequences  of  their  principles.  On  the  other 
hand,  principles  have  a  way  of  working  themselves 
out,  if  time  be  allowed  ;  there  is  a  logic  in  things 
which  lies  beyond  the  will  of  the  conscious  reasoner ; 
and,  therefore,  it  is  not  a  matter  of  no  moment  to 
determine  whether  or  not,  in  its  essence,  Socialism 
is  irreconcilable  with  the  family.  I  suppose,  the 
argument  of  those  who  believe  that  it  is  would 
be,  that  the  family  is  inconceivable  without  the 
existence  of  private  property  to  an  extent  not 
allowed  by  a  strict  and  consistent  Socialism  ;  and, 
also,  that  the  very  idea  of  the  family  involves  an 
hereditary  transmission  both  of  property  and  other 
advantages  inconsistent  with  the  equality  which 
is  one  of  the  principal  planks  of  Socialism.  Into 
such  theoretical  inquiries,  however,  this  is  hardly 
the  place  to  enter ;  and  I  will  not  at  present 
pursue  the  subject  further. 

Although  Christianity  has  a  great  deal  to  do  with 
the  home  in  nearly  every  aspect  in  which  it  can  be 
considered,  nevertheless  marriage  is  not  an  institu¬ 
tion  which  owes  its  origin  to  Christianity.  It  existed 
long  before  the  Advent.  Neither  is  its  authority 
to  be  sought  among  the  enactments  of  the  Mosaic 
legislation.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  a  purely  human 
institution,  having  its  ground  and  reason  in  creation. 
This  was  acknowledged  by  our  Lord  Himself,  when, 
in  reply  to  the  cavils  of  the  Pharisees,  He  answered  : 


336 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


“  Have  ye  not  read,  that  He  which  made  them  at 
the  beginning  made  them  male  and  female,  and  said, 
For  this  cause  shall  a  man  leave  father  and  mother 
and  shall  cleave  unto  his  wife,  and  they  twain  shall 
be  one  flesh?  Wherefore  they  are  no  more  twain, 
but  one  flesh.  What,  therefore,  God  hath  joined  let 
not  man  put  asunder.”  Marriage  thus  belongs  to 
the  primitive  condition  of  human  existence,  and  is 
inherent  in  the  human  constitution.  In  its  essence, 
it  is  due  to  the  choice  of  the  twain  by  each  other, 
and,  while  the  sanction  of  State  or  Church  may  be 
grounded  on  the  best  of  reasons,  it  is  something 
added,  not  the  constitutive  element  in  the  union. 
The  State  demands  publicity,  in  order  that  the  new 
home  may  be  registered  in  proper  form  in  the  circle 
of  civilisation  over  which  it  watches  ;  and  the  Church 
claims  the  right  to  perform  the  ceremony,  because 
the  blessing  of  God  is  the  protection  of  the  home ; 
but  both  of  these  are  only  confirmatory  of  what  the 
parties  themselves  do  by  their  own  choice.  State 
and  Church  can  lend  dignity  and  sacredness  to  the 
covenant  of  nature  ;  but  it  is  criminal  when  the  State 
places  unnecessary  or  arbitrary  obstacles  in  the  way 
of  marriage,  and  the  Church  is  still  more  culpable 
if  it  terrorises  weak  consciences  by  casting  suspicion 
upon  forms  of  marriage  which  are  sufficient,  in  the 
eyes  of  God  and  man.* 

*  By  the  recent  decisions  of  the  Roman  Curia  on  this  subject, 
Roman  Catholics  who  are  married  to  Protestants  before  a  civil 


THE  FAMILY 


337 


In  His  quotation  from  Genesis  our  Lord  makes 
reference  to  that  mysterious  attraction  not  only 
between  the  sexes,  but  between  individuals  in  the 
opposite  sexes,  which  draws  them  into  marriage.  It 
is  stronger  than  the  attraction  that  binds  to  the 
homes  from  which  the  pair  are  drawn  away  to 
found  a  new  one — “  A  man  shall  leave  father  and 
mother  and  shall  cleave  unto  his  wife.”  No  wonder 
the  Saviour  alluded  to  this  passion  with  such  high 
appreciation  ;  for,  if  the  aim  of  Christianity  is  to 
ourcre  the  heart  of  selfishness,  it  can  find  in  the 
world  nothing  so  akin  to  itself  as  pure  love  between 
the  sexes,  which  carries  the  person  possessed  with  it 
completely  out  of  himself  and  makes  all  sacrifices 
for  the  sake  of  the  beloved  object  easy.  In  some, 
no  doubt,  this  is  transient,  the  mere  blazing  up  of 
a  flame  which  is  soon  extinguished  But  in  multi¬ 
tudes  of  cases  it  is  enduring.  The  choice  is  a 
permanent  one,  and  the  union  only  becomes  more 
close  and  sacred  the  longer  it  lasts.  If  to  first  love, 
as  it  is  called,  there  attaches  a  beauty  which  has 

official  or  by  a  Protestant  minister  are  told  by  the  priest  that 
their  wedlock  is  invalid,  and  that  they  are  living  in  a  state  of 
concubinage.  This  is  the  more  reprehensible  because,  as 
is  hinted  not  obscurely  in  the  recent  episcopal  pastorals,  the 
irregularity  can  be  circumvented  by  a  money  payment  at  Rome. 
Of  a  piece  with  this  is  the  notorious  fact  that  in  some  Catholic 
countries  the  fees  charged  by  the  clergy  for  the  celebration  of 
marriage  are  so  high  as  to  be  prohibitive  to  numbers  of  the 
poor,  and  so  prove  the  occasion  for  the  formation  of  irregular 
connections. 


22 


338 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


evoked  the  enthusiasm  of  poets  and  romancers,  the 
love  of  old  age  is  not  less  beautiful,  when  it  has 
survived  all  the  changes  and  chances  of  life,  only 
becoming  mellower  with  the  passage  of  the  years. 

There  is  a  sensuous  element  in  this  passion,  to 
which  our  Lord  did  not  scruple  to  refer,  when  He 
quoted  :  “  And  they  two  shall  be  one  flesh.”  Indeed, 
in  this  part  of  human  life,  the  ideal  and  unselfish 
remains  for  ever  linked  with  the  animal  and  egoistic  ; 
and  the  history  of  civilisation  itself  as  well  as  of 
Christianity  might  be  written  in  terms  of  the  pre¬ 
valence  of  the  one  element  or  the  other.*  In¬ 
numerable  influences  are  forever  at  work,  in  all  lands, 
to  evoke  and  impel  the  animal  element  in  this 
passion,  while  others  are,  at  the  same  time,  working 
on  behalf  of  the  ideal  element.  This  is  a  struggle 
incessantly  going  on,  not  only  in  society  at  large, 
but  in  every  bosom  ;  and  the  result  determines  from 
stage  to  stage  the  station  and  degree  both  of  the 
nation  and  of  the  man.  In  custom,  opinion  and 
literature,  not  only  is  there  a  championship  of  the 
flesh  which  is  hurtful,  but  there  may  be  an  exaltation 
of  the  ideal  or  spiritualised  which  is  morbid  also.  It 
requires  fine  taste  and  discrimination  to  divine  where 
the  happy  mean  lies ;  and  this  is  a  knowledge  which 

*  I  have  heard  Dr.  Laws,  with  his  unsurpassed  knowledge  of 
savage  peoples,  remark  that  the  place  of  any  race  on  the  upward 
or  the  downward  scale  can  be  accurately  measured  by  their 
relation  to  two  of  the  Ten  Commandments — the  fifth  and  the 
seventh. 


THE  FAMILY 


339 


has  to  be  acquired  gradually  by  both  the  individual 
and  the  race.  The  contrast,  for  example,  between 
the  conception  of  love  prevalent  in  the  English 
literature  of  the  eighteenth  century  and  in  that  belong¬ 
ing  to  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century  may 
serve  as  an  illustration  of  how  radically  the  senti¬ 
ments  of  a  people  on  this  subject  may  change ;  and 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that,  in  this  case,  the  change 
was  due  to  the  revival  of  earnest  religion  which  had 
taken  place  between  these  dates.  The  services  of 
those  who,  by  their  descriptions  of  this  portion  of 
human  life  in  imaginative  literature,  are  making  the 
advances  towards  marriage  more  pure  and  refined 
may  not  always  be  consciously  rendered  to  Christ  ; 
but  there  are  few  services  which  accord  better  with 
His  aims  and  spirit. 

It  is  true,  however,  that  the  attraction  referred  to 
between  the  parties  to  a  marriage  is  not  the  only 
consideration  which  ought  to  weigh  in  coming  to 
a  decision.  There  are  numerous  other  circumstances 
which  require  to  be  taken  into  account,  such  as 
health,  the  lawful  claims  of  other  relationships,  the 
ability  to  support  a  household,  and  so  on.  A  reck¬ 
less  disregard  of  these  may  make  marriage  a  source 
not  of  happiness,  but  the  reverse  ;  just  as,  on  the 
contrary,  an  excessive  regard  for  secondary  con¬ 
siderations,  such  as  money,  may  do  equal  harm  in 
another  way.  Still  it  is  pure  affection  that  is  the 
prime  guarantee  of  success  in  this  relationship,  and 


340 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


it  is  to  the  absence  or  extinction  of  it  that  the 
failure  of  marriage  is  oftenest  due.  Those  in  whom 
the  ideal  element  has  been  absent,  at  the  contraction 
of  marriage,  find  themselves  not  in  a  paradise,  as 
they  had  expected,  but  in  a  trap,  when  the  ebullition 
of  animal  passion  has  subsided,  as  it  easily  does, 
or  has  been  transferred  to  another  object;  and  those 
who  have  married  for  money  or  position  find  them¬ 
selves  confronted  by  a  prospect  scarcely  less  dreary. 
It  is  out  of  errors  of  this  kind  that  the  demand  for 
divorce  arises.  Moses,  for  the  hardness  of  the  hearts 
of  the  people  with  whom  he  had  to  deal — that  is,  to 
prevent  worse  from  happening — afforded  facility  for 
putting-away  ;  and  the  same  course  has  been  followed 
by  too  complaisant  governments  in  both  ancient 
and  modern  times.  But  Jesus  laid  an  arrest  on  this 
course ;  and,  wherever  His  name  is  respected,  His 
authority  will  sway  opinion  and  legislation  towards  a 
purer  standard. 

In  two  of  the  Gospels  where  this  is  referred  to, 
Jesus  is  reported  as  forbidding  divorce  altogether; 
but  in  St.  Matthew  He  makes  an  exception,  “  for 
the  cause  of  fornication  ”  ;  and  this,  some  maintain, 
must  have  been  understood,  even  if  it  had  not  been 
expressed,  because  this  sin,  in  point  of  fact,  dissolves 
the  union.  Others  have  interpreted  Him  in  the 
opposite  direction,  holding  this  to  be  only  a  specimen 
reason,  which  implies  others  of  the  same  kind,  such 
as  desertion,  which  St.  Paul  seems  to  allow  to 


THE  FAMILY 


34i 


be  sufficient.  It  is  well  that,  in  circles  where 
Christian  sentiment  is  earnest  and  pure,  the  necessity 
for  knowing  much  about  such  fine  discriminations 
seldom  arises  ;  and,  while  any  considerable  ac¬ 
quaintance  with  actual  life  will  reveal  many  cases 
of  hardship,  where  selfishness  and  cruelty  take  refuge 
behind  the  veil  of  the  domestic  reticences,  yet  the 
general  observation  cannot  be  ignored  that,  whatever 
the  relief  to  the  individual  which  laxity  might  give, 
it  would  be  purchased  too  dearly  by  the  blow  inflicted 
on  the  structure  of  society  itself. 

This  divine  institution  aims  not  only  at  the  union 
of  two  for  their  mutual  comfort  and  improvement, 
but  likewise,  as  the  English  Marriage  Service  says, 
exists  for  “  the  procreation  of  children,  to  be  brought 
up  in  the  fear  and  nurture  of  the  Lord  and  to  the 
praise  of  His  holy  name.”  This  is  an  aspect  of 
human  life  on  which  Jesus  cast  a  most  sympathetic 
and  comprehending  eye.  When  speaking  of  the 
destruction  of  the  temple  and  of  the  calamities  that 
would  ensue,  He  glanced  with  pity  at  the  women 
who  might  be  with  child  or  nursing  their  infants 
at  such  a  period  of  distress  ;  and,  when  the  women 
followed  Him  on  the  way  to  the  cross,  He  turned 
to  them,  saying,  “Daughters  of  Jerusalem,  weep 
not  for  Me,  but  weep  for  yourselves  and  for  your 
children  ;  for,  if  these  things  be  done  in  a  green 
tree,  what  shall  be  done  in  the  dry  ?  ”  Many  of 


342 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


His  miracles  were  wrought  on  children,  being,  as 
in  the  cases  of  Jairus’  daughter  and  the  daughter 
of  the  Syrophoenician  Woman,  accompanied  by  ex¬ 
quisite  touches  of  humanity  towards  the  parents. 
A  favourite  name  of  His  for  God  was  the  God 
of  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob,  in  using  which  He 
had  evidently  in  mind  the  promise  enshrined  in  this 
ancient  phrase,  that  piety  may  descend  in  the  home 
from  generation  to  generation.  By  the  scene  in 
which  He  blessed  the  little  children  He  took 
possession  forever  of  the  heart  not  only  of  childhood 
but  of  motherhood  ;  and  it  would  be  difficult  to 
exaggerate  the  revolution  in  the  condition  of  children 
and  the  estimation  in  which  they  are  held  which  has 
been  due  to  this  incident  alone.  In  all  the  centuries 
since,  the  words  then  uttered  by  Him  have  been 
working  like  a  leaven,  and  their  virtue  is  not  yet 
by  any  means  exhausted. 

Jesus  did  not,  however,  merely  view  domestic  life 
sympathetically  from  the  outside  :  He  was  a  member 
of  a  human  family  and  bore  Himself  as  a  son  of  man 
in  the  several  relations  which  this  involved. 

When  He  was  twelve  years  of  age,  it  is  expressly 
said,  He  went  down  from  Jerusalem  with  His  parents 
to  Nazareth,  and  “was  subject  unto  them.”  Not  only, 
in  His  doctrine,  did  He  rebuke  those  who  excused 
themselves,  by  pious  gifts  to  public  religion,  from 
doing  aught  for  their  fathers  and  mothers,  but,  in  the 
article  of  death,  He  turned  His  attention  away  from 


THE  FAMILY 


343 


His  own  sufferings,  with  all  their  mysterious  import, 
in  order  to  make  provision  for  the  future  support  and 
comfort  of  His  mother,  whom  He  placed  in  the 
hands  of  the  most  loving  and  comprehending  of  His 
disciples. 

The  relationship  of  brother  and  brother,  or  of 
brother  and  sister,  is  one  in  which  there  lie  many 
possibilities  ;  and  Jesus  showed  His  appreciation  of 
these  by  associating,  in  more  than  one  case,  brother 
and  brother  in  the  list  of  His  apostles.  To  Himself 
personally  this  relationship  proved  for  long  a  source 
of  tragic  pain  ;  because  His  own  brethren  did  not 
believe  in  Him — a  circumstance  which  lends  peculiar 
pathos  to  the  saying,  "  A  prophet  is  not  without 
honour  but  in  his  own  country,  and  among  his  own 
kin,  and  in  his  own  house.”  If,  in  the  parable  of  the 
Rich  Man  and  Lazarus,  Jesus  represented  even  Dives 
as  concerned  for  his  five  brethren,  lest  they  also 
should  come  into  the  place  of  torment,  we  cannot  be 
wrong  in  persuading  ourselves  that  He  must  Himself 
have  prayed  and  striven  for  the  conversion  of  His 
unbelieving  brethren.  To  the  day  of  His  death  they, 
nevertheless,  remained  in  opposition  ;  and  it  is  not 
unlikely  that  others  may  have  taken  encouragement 
from  them  to  persevere  in  rejecting  His  claims.  As 
soon  as  He  had  risen  from  the  dead,  Jesus  resumed 
the  effort  to  save  His  brethren,  His  haste  betraying 
the  pressure  with  which  this  anxiety  had  always  lain 
upon  His  heart.  One  of  His  first  appearances  was 


344 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


to  James  ;  and  so  convincing  did  the  evidence  thus 
brought  to  bear  on  the  mind  of  the  doubter  prove 
that  not  only  did  he  himself  at  once  abandon  his 
unbelief  and  throw  in  his  lot  with  the  cause  of  his 
Brother,  but  the  rest  of  the  household  yielded  to 
conviction  at  the  same  time,  presenting  themselves 
among  the  other  representatives  of  the  cause  the  first 
time,  after  the  Resurrection,  these  rallied  in  an  upper 
room  at  Jerusalem  ;  and  two  of  the  brothers  lived  to 
be  authors  of  New  Testament  Scriptures. 

But  this  long-continued  opposition  on  the  part  of 
the  brethren  of  Jesus  was  only  the  most  outstanding 
instance  of  collision  between  Jesus  and  His  earthly 
relations,  which  manifested  itself  also  in  other  ways. 
There  is  a  slight  indication  as  early  as  the 
incident  in  the  temple,  when  He  was  twelve  years 
of  age,  of  a  dissonance  between  Him  and  His  parents  : 
it  is  evident  that  He  then  became  aware  of  a  call, 
which  they  were  unable  to  hear  but  He  felt  He  could 
not  disregard.  In  all  homes  there  comes  a  date, 
differing,  indeed,  in  different  cases  and  seldom  clearly 
marked  in  the  calendar,  at  which  the  authority  of 
parents  has  to  relax  its  hold  and  the  children  take 
their  destiny  into  their  own  hands  ;  but  parents 
sometimes  do  not  submit  with  grace  to  this  inevitable 
change,  attempting  to  exercise  their  right  too  long, 
while  children,  on  the  other  hand,  to  their  own  peril, 
may  grasp  at  emancipation  too  soon.  In  the  case  of 
a  character  as  original  as  Jesus,  it  was  inevitable  that 


THE  FAMILY 


345 


the  yoke  should  be  slipped  and  that  He  should  brook 
no  interference  with  the  plan  of  His  life,  after  it  had 
been  clearly  formulated  in  His  own  mind.  But  this 
was  not  understood  by  those  to  whom  according  to 
the  flesh  He  appertained.  At  one  stage,  when  His 
absorption  in  His  work  was  such  as  to  excite  the 
alarm  of  His  people,  these  *  “  went  out  to  lay  hold 
on  Him,  for  they  said,  He  is  beside  Himself.”  If 
His  mother  took  any  part  in  this  unseemly  attempt, 
it  is  no  wonder  that,  when  next  she  approached  Him 
as  if  she  had  a  right  to  interrupt  His  work  and  call 
Him  away  to  attend  to  her  at  pleasure,  she  experienced 
a  sharp  rebuke.  In  St.  Mark  it  is  immediately  after 
the  incident  just  referred  to,  that  Mary  and  His 
brethren  come,  in  the  midst  of  His  teaching,  and, 
standing  without,  desire  speech  with  Him.  This 
being  signified  to  Him  by  those  standing  near,  He 
exclaimed,  “  Who  is  My  mother  or  My  brethren  ?  ” 
And  He  looked  round  about  on  them  that  sat  about 
Him  and  said,  “  Behold  My  mother  and  My  brethren  ! 
for  whosoever  shall  do  the  will  of  God,  the  same  is 
My  brother  and  My  sister  and  mother.”  The  effect 
of  this  may  have  been  modified  by  its  being 
pronounced  with  a  smile  ;  and  it  shows  how  close 
and  tender  He  felt  the  natural  relation  to  be  that 
He  compared  the  new  spiritual  one  to  it  ;  yet  this 
was  a  distinct  preference  of  the  relationship  formed 
by  discipleship  to  that  due  to  nature. 


*  ol  nap'  avruv. 


346 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


As  soon  as  He  began  to  call  men  to  come  and 
follow  Him,  He  was  similarly  brought  into  collision 
with  family  claims.  No  doubt  there  were  other 
obstacles  of  a  less  creditable  description,  such  as 
entanglement  with  the  pleasures  and  engagements 
of  the  world,  which  prevented  those  called  from 
attaching  themselves  to  Him  ;  but  the  very  respecta¬ 
bility  of  excuses  derived  from  domestic  obligations 
may  have  made  these,  to  some  at  least,  more  fetter¬ 
ing  than  grosser  restraints.  At  all  events  the 
cases  were  numerous,  and  Jesus  had  to  administer 
rebuke  in  tones  of  extreme  sharpness.  One,  when 
called,  would  say,  “  I  have  married  a  wife,  and 
therefore  I  cannot  come  ”  ;  another,  “  Let  me  go 
and  say  farewell  to  those  who  are  at  home  ” ; 
another,  “Let  me  first  go  and  bury  my  father.” 
“No  man,”  said  Jesus,  “having  laid  his  hand  to 
the  plough  and  looking  back,  is  fit  for  the  kingdom 
of  heaven.”  “  He  that  loveth  father  or  mother 
more  than  Me,”  He  would  say  in  His  doctrine.  “  is 
not  worthy  of  Me ;  and  he  that  loveth  son  or 
daughter  more  than  Me  is  not  worthy  of  Me.” 
One  of  the  Evangelists  even  reports  Him  as  saying, 
“If  any  man  come  to  Me  and  hate  not  his  father 
and  mother,  and  wife  and  children,  and  brethren 
and  sisters,  yea,  and  his  own  life  also,  he  cannot 
be  My  disciple.”  And  not  only  was  there  this 
collision  of  duties  for  the  time  then  present ;  but 
He  foretold  that  it  would  be  an  accompaniment 


THE  FAMILY 


347 


of  the  subsequent  progress  of  the  Gospel :  “  For 
from  henceforth  there  shall  be  five  in  one  house 
divided,  three  against  two  and  two  against  three. 
The  father  shall  be  divided  against  the  son  and  the 
son  against  the  father,  the  mother  against  the 
daughter  and  the  daughter  against  the  mother, 
the  mother-in-law  against  her  daughter-in-law  and 
the  daughter-in-law  against  her  mother-in-law  ” — an 
anticipation  which  is  fulfilling  itself  down  to  the 
present  hour,  in  missions  to  the  Orient,  for  example, 
where  the  ties  of  home  are  so  enveloping  that  it  is 
easier  to  break  through  any  other  obstacle  for  the 
purpose  of  making  a  Christian  profession.  He 
drew  a  still  more  ghastly  picture  of  the  effects  of 
the  collision  of  the  demands  of  His  Gospel  and 
the  claims  of  the  family,  when  He  said,  “  The 
brother  shall  betray  the  brother  to  death,  and  the 
father  the  son  ;  and  children  shall  rise  up  against 
their  parents,  and  shall  cause  them  to  be  put  to 
death  ”  ;  but  the  fulfilment  of  this  prophecy  also 
could  be  amply  confirmed  from  the  records  of  times 
of  persecution. 

The  drift  of  all  this  is  unmistakeable.  When  the 
call  of  the  Gospel  comes  into  conflict  with  the 
claims  of  the  family,  Jesus  requires  that  the  former 
should  prevail.  He  is  Lord  of  the  conscience. 
Much  may  be  said,  and  ought  to  be  said,  about 
the  need  that,  in  such  cases,  the  conscience  should 
be  an  adult  conscience,  and  an  instructed  one ; 


348 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


also,  much  may  be  said  of  the  unfounded  claims 
of  pretended  lords  of  the  conscience  to  speak  in 
His  name  ;  yet,  when  all  is  said,  the  course  which 
conscience  must  take  is  clear — it  must  acknowledge 
and  obey  its  Lord. 

To  work  out  all  that  is  implied  in  this  claim, 
from  a  dogmatic  point  of  view,  does  not  belong 
to  our  present  purpose ;  it  lies  pretty  evidently  on 
the  surface.  But  here  I  shall  only  add,  that  Jesus 
honoured  the  relation  of  parenthood  by  using  it 
as  the  earthly  image  for  His  own  relation,  as  well 
as  His  people’s,  to  the  Father  in  heaven  ;  and  that 
He  honoured  the  relation  of  husband  and  wife  by 
calling  Himself,  as  we  have  already  seen  He  did,  the 
Bridegroom,  the  bride  being  the  Church,  and  by 
shadowing  forth  the  same  truth  in  the  parable  of  the 
King  who  made  a  Marriage  for  his  Son. 


THE  STATE 


Matt.  x.  18. 
xii.  25. 
xv.  24. 
xvii.  24-27. 
xviii.  23-35. 
xxii.  1 -14. 
xxiv.  6. 


Mark  ii.  14-17. 

iii.  24. 

iv.  19. 

vi.  8,  9. 

vii.  27. 

viii.  36,  37. 

ix.  33-37- 

x.  i7-3i»  33* 

34,  35-45- 

xi. 15-19,  27-33. 

xii.  1-44. 

xiii.  7-12,32-37. 

xiv.  3-1 1,  62. 

XV.  2. 


Luke  iv.  16-32. 

v.  4*7,  27-32. 

vi.  3,  4,  30. 

vii.  1-10,  25. 

viii.  14. 

ix.  3-5,  22. 

x*  4,  7,  41, 

xi.  3,  17. 

xii.  11-30. 

xiii.  1 6,  34,  35. 

xiv.  18,  19,  31- 

33- 

xvi.  1 -3 1. 

xvii.  7-10. 
xviii.  18-32. 


XIX. 

1-27, 

30, 

31 

,  41-44. 

XX. 

i-8,  9 

-26, 

41 

-47* 

xxi. 

9,  10, 

12, 

24 

-26. 

xxii.  35. 
xxiv.  47. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 


THE  STATE 

HOWEVER  much  a  Christian  may  dwell  in 
an  ideal  world,  yet  it  is  ordained  by  nature 
herself  that  he  must  touch  the  earth.  Man  may 
not  live  by  bread  alone,  but,  on  the  other  hand, 
he  cannot  live  without  bread.  However  he  may 
make  even  the  act  of  eating  sacramental  by  accom¬ 
panying  it  with  the  prayer,  “  Give  us  this  day  our 
daily  bread,”  yet  the  necessity  of  eating  tethers 
everyone  to  this  material  world.  Still  more  when 
a  man  has  to  provide  for  others  does  this  necessity 
urge  itself  as  irresistible.  When  asked  for  bread, 
a  father  cannot  give  a  stone  ;  he  must  have  where¬ 
with  to  satisfy  the  hungry  mouths  that  call  to  him 
for  the  means  of  subsistence.  Clothing  has  to  be 
provided  as  well  as  food ;  and  the  shelter  of  a  roof 
is  also,  in  most  parts  of  the  globe,  a  necessity,  and 
often  one  far  from  easy  to  provide.  For  these  reasons 
man  must  sow  and  reap,  weave  and  build. 

In  ages  long  before  the  point  at  which  human 
records  begin,  it  must  have  been  discovered  that 
the  provision  of  the  elementary  necessities  can  be 


351 


352 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


facilitated  by  the  division  of  labour.  From  this  it 
was  but  a  step  to  the  exchange  of  the  values  which 
labour  had  produced.  Then  came  the  invention  of 
money  as  a  substitute  and  tender  for  articles.  And, 
with  these  three  attainments,  man  was  on  the  path 
to  that  vast  multiplication  of  tasks  of  which  modern 
society  consists.  Society  is  an  organism  in  which 
every  individual  ought  to  find  his  own  place  and 
do  his  own  part  of  the  general  work. 

As  society  thus  develops,  its  members  are  not 
content  with  the  satisfaction  of  the  elementary 
necessities.  Not  only  food  is  desired,  but  good 
food ;  not  only  a  garment,  but  a  beautiful  one ; 
not  only  a  house,  but  a  comfortable  one.  Besides, 
the  work  reacts  on  the  worker,  who  is  healthy  and 
happy  in  proportion  as  he  is  usefully  occupied,  and 
grows  in  personal  refinement  the  finer  the  thought 
and  the  more  sustained  the  pains  he  puts  into 
the  labour  of  his  hands.  The  earth,  as  a  whole, 
assumes  forms  of  beauty  in  proportion  to  the  care 
bestowed  on  its  cultivation  ;  and  by  degrees  there 
arises  in  the  mind  of  the  race  the  conception  of 
the  whole  planet,  which  is  its  habitation,  transmuted 
into  a  scene  of  happiness  through  the  joint  action 
of  all  its  inhabitants.* 

There  are  many  sayings  of  Jesus  which  show 
how  deep  was  His  insight  into  this  side  of  human 

*  This  is  very  nearly  the  conception  of  the  ethical  vocation  of 
the  race  as  a  whole  expounded  by  Schleiermacher  and  Rothe. 


THE  STATE 


353 


life.  The  nobleman,  in  the  parable,  about  to  travel 
into  a  far  country  divides  his  means  among  his 
servants,  who  are  to  trade  with  his  money  in  his 
absence ;  the  husbandman,  in  like  manner,  leaves 
his  vineyard  in  charge  of  the  vinedressers,  with  strict 
orders  to  be  able  to  deliver  the  fruits  in  their  season. 
In  the  parable  of  the  Talents  the  observation  is 
made  prominent  that  some  are  gifted  for  tasks  and 
positions  for  which  others  are  unfit,  and  that  from 
each  will  be  demanded  service  in  proportion  to  his 
abilities.  From  the  same  parable  and  from  other 
sayings  of  Jesus  we  gather  that  He  looked  upon 
nothing  with  more  dislike  than  the  failure  to  make 
use  of  talents.  There  are  to  be  no  drones  in  the 
social  hive.  It  is  possible,  indeed,  that,  through 
the  favour  of  fortune,  some  may  be  relieved  from 
the  common  tasks  in  which  others  have  to  toil 
without  ceasing  ;  but,  if  so,  they  must  find  other 
occupations  in  which  they  may  be  helpful  in  pro¬ 
moting  the  general  weal.  While  the  less  favoured 
may  find  it  excuse  enough  for  idleness,  that  no 
man  hath  hired  them,  the  more  highly  favoured 
ought  to  be  able  to  find  employment  for  themselves.* 


*  Most  of  the  modern  writers  on  Christian  Ethics  are  very 
strong  in  the  demand  tiiat  everyone  must  have  a  sphere  to  fill 
and  a  work  to  do,  idleness  being  criminal.  See,  for  instance, 
the  latest  great  work  published  in  Germany  on  the  subject, 
Lemme’s  Christliche  Ethik ,  11.,  pp.  39  ff.  So  Dorner,  Christliche 
Sittenlehre ,  p.  526,  “  Es  dart  keinen  Stand  geben,  dessen  Arbeit 
nur  der  Genuss  ist.” 

23 


354 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


At  all  events,  when  the  final  account  is  made  up, 
a  full  equivalent  in  work  for  all  talents  bestowed 
will  be  demanded. 

This  realm  of  duties,  which  society  is,  has,  for  its 
counterpart,  a  realm  of  rights,  which  society  is  like¬ 
wise.  He  who  plucks  the  fruit  eats  it,  and  much 
more  is  he  who  grows  it  entitled  to  do  the  same. 
He  who  goes  a-fishing  finds,  through  his  vigilance 
and  skill,  enough  not  only  for  himself  but  for  his 
household.  Each  one’s  enjoyment  is  not,  however, 
confined  to  what  he  can  himself  grow  or  catch.  He 
who  has  made  a  catch  of  fish  may  be  said  to  have 
captured  fruit  also ;  for  the  possessor  of  the  fruit 
will  be  happy  to  let  him  have  part  of  it  for  part 
of  the  fish.  Thus  may  all  the  inhabitants  of  the 
earth  be  said  to  have  among  them  not  only  its 
products  but  its  potentialities  ;  and  by  labour  well 
directed,  in  which  everyone  bears  his  own  part, 
there  should  be  enough  for  all. 

But  here  comes  in  the  difficulty  of  determining 
the  shares.  Some,  because  they  have  better  talents 
or  more  conscientiousness,  and  so  render  more  ser¬ 
vice,  are  entitled  to  a  larger  or  finer  share.  Besides, 
the  principle  of  heredity  causes  the  share  of  some 
to  accumulate  from  generation  to  generation,  so  that 
the  later-born  obtain  the  advantage  of  the  virtue 
of  their  predecessors.  Some  have  dreamed  of  over¬ 
looking  both  of  these  distinctions  ;  but  society  must 
beware  of  killing  the  goose  that  lays  the  golden  eggs. 


THE  STATE 


355 


The  larger  and  finer  share  given  to  the  one  who 
contributes  more  than  others  of  labour  and  duty 
is  a  stimulus  to  work  ;  and  so  is  the  hope  of  leaving 
what  has  been  gained  to  those  who  come  after. 
Indeed,  these  are  the  two  principles  upon  which  the 
forward  and  upward  movement  of  society  depends. 

It  is,  however,  a  very  different  thing  when  the 
powerful,  by  mere  violence  and  injustice,  appropriate 
that  which  they  have  never  earned,  and  transmit 
it  to  their  offspring.  This  has  been  the  great  blot 
on  human  history  :  the  powerful  have  forgotten  their 
duties  and  forgotten  their  brotherhood,  and  thought 
of  nothing  but  possession  and  enjoyment.  Hence 
the  tears  of  which  the  centuries  have  been  full,  and 
hence  the  wrongs  which  have  so  accumulated  that 
no  man  can  say  fully  what  is  right  and  what  is 
wrong  in  the  actual  condition  of  the  world. 

With  this  side  of  human  life,  also,  the  sayings 
of  Jesus  prove  Him  to  have  been  profoundly  con¬ 
versant.  In  so  many  words  He  says,  “  The  labourer 
is  worthy  of  his  hire  ”  ;  and,  in  one  of  the  parables, 
a  husbandman,  hiring  labourers  for  his  work,  says 
to  those  standing  in  the  market-place,  “  Go  ye  also 
into  the  vineyard,  and  whatsoever  is  right,  that  shall 
ye  receive.”  In  other  parables  He  represents  honest 
and  faithful  work  as  being  handsomely  rewarded, 
and  success  in  one  function  as  opening  up  the  way 
to  employment  more  remunerative.  This  principle 
is  expressed  with  emphasis  in  a  saying  of  which 


35^ 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


He  appears  to  have  been  specially  fond — the  observa¬ 
tion  that,  to  him  who  hath  shall  be  given,  and  he 
shall  have  abundance,  but  that  from  him  that  hath 
not  shall  be  taken  away  even  that  which  he  hath. 
To  some  minds  this  may  seem  a  cruel  arrangement, 
especially  the  latter  part  of  it ;  but  it  is  a  fact  of 
of  everyday  occurrence ;  and  Jesus  was  true  to 
natural  law. 

He  is  sometimes  supposed  to  be  speaking  in  the 
opposite  sense  when,  in  a  parable  already  alluded 
to,  He  represents  the  rest  of  the  labourers,  what¬ 
ever  has  been  the  length  of  their  day’s  work — even 
though  they  have  only  laboured  a  single  hour — as 
receiving  exactly  as  much  as  those  who  have  borne 
the  burden  and  heat  of  the  day.  Here,  it  is  con¬ 
tended,  He  is  teaching  a  novel  economical  prin¬ 
ciple,  to  the  effect  that  the  labourers  were  sufficiently 
excused  for  their  idleness  by  the  fact  that  no  man 
had  hired  them,  and  that  all  willing  to  work  are 
entitled  to  the  like  wage,  because  the  true  rule  is, 
From  each,  work  according  to  his  powers  ;  to  each, 
pay  according  to  his  necessities.  It  is  certainly 
interesting  that  the  teaching  of  Jesus  is  capable  of 
being  aligned  in  this  way  along  with  the  most 
recent  theories ;  but  it  must  remain  questionable  if 
this  was  His  meaning.  The  very  point  of  His 
teaching  seems  rather  to  be,  that  God  can  act  with 
a  generosity  which  is  neither,  as  a  rule,  possible 
nor  even  desirable  in  human  affairs.  It  is  of  similar 


THE  STATE 


357 


import  with  another  deep  word,  in  which  Jesus 
advises  His  disciples,  after  they  have  done  their 
very  utmost,  to  say,  “  We  are  unprofitable  servants  : 
we  have  done  what  it  was  our  duty  to  do.”  Claims 
of  right  extend  from  man  to  man,  not  from  man 
to  God. 

Thus  is  human  life  a  twofold  realm  of  duties  on 
the  one  hand  and  rights  on  the  other  ;  and  the  State 
is  a  device  for  watching  over  the  whole,  with  a  view 
to  see  that  all  are  doing  their  duties  and  that  all  are 
obtaining  their  rights.  Like  the  family,  the  State  is 
not  a  creation  of  Christianity  :  it  existed  long  before 
the  appearance  of  our  Lord  on  earth.  It  is  not 
even  religious  in  origin,  but  seems  to  be  a  primitive 
product  of  human  nature.  Among  philosophers 
there  has,  indeed,  been  the  utmost  diversity  of 
opinion  as  to  how  it  has  actually  arisen,  some  taking 
an  optimistic  and  others  a  pessimistic  view  of  its 
origin.  At  the  opposite  extremes  are  Hegel  and 
Augustine  :  Hegel  called  the  State  the  realisation  of 
the  moral  ideal  ;  Augustine  said  that  states  were 
magna  latrocinia.  The  State  is  a  kind  of  rough  and 
elementary  morality.  Its  soul  is  law  ;  and  its  instru¬ 
ments  are  punishments.  The  law  of  the  State  is  a 
rough  copy  of  the  law  of  the  conscience.  Hence 
those  who  live  according  to  conscience  have  little  or 
nothing  to  do  with  the  law,  of  the  very  existence  of 
which  they  may  not  think  once  in  a  twelvemonth. 
Those  who  have  to  do  with  it  are  the  lawless  and 


358 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


disobedient,  who  are  thinking  about  it  all  the  time. 
But  the  law  of  the  State  is  ever  changing  ;  and  so  it 
may  be  brought  closer  and  closer  to  the  law  of 
conscience.  The  less  of  law  the  better,  some  think  ; 
the  State,  according  to  such  thinkers,  has  only 
negative  functions  ;  it  is  only  intended  to  secure 
the  well-doing  from  interference.*  Others  ascribe 
to  it  much  wider  functions  ;  and  the  tendency  at 
present  is  to  allow  it  to  encroach  on  the  territory 
of  the  family  and  the  Church.  Hobbes  in  the 
Leviathan  represented  the  State  as  an  official,  in 
whose  hands  all  men  had  placed  all  their  possessions, 
when  they  found  they  were  like  to  destroy  one  another 
in  the  struggle  for  them,  empowering  him  to  distribute 
to  all  according  to  his  own  judgment  and  will.  But 
too  often  has  this  authority  betrayed  his  trust ;  for 
he  has  used  for  his  own  purposes  the  goods  which  he 
ought  to  have  administered  for  the  general  welfare. 

If  the  law  be,  as  has  been  stated  above,  an 
elementary  morality,  Christianity,  the  religion  of 
conscience,  must  be  akin  to  it  and  must  be  capable 
of  being  served  by  it.  It  is,  accordingly,  extra¬ 
ordinary  how  optimistic  a  view  was  taken  by  early 
Christianity  of  the  law,  as  well  as  of  the  government 
by  which  it  was  administered,  even  when  the  law 
and  government  in  question  were  those  of  pagan 
and  cruel  Rome.  St.  Paul  suffered  much  at  the 
hands  of  Roman  officials,  and,  in  all  probability,  he 


*  Nietzsche:  “So  wenig  Staat  wie  moglich.  * 


THE  STATE 


359 


at  last  fell  a  victim  to  the  fury  of  a  persecuting 
government ;  yet  even  of  this  government  he  speaks 
in  terms  of  profound  respect,  ordering  Christians  to 
render  it  obedience,  because  it  is  a  minister  for  good, 
a  terror  to  evildoers  and  a  praise  to  them  that  do  well, 
and  calling  upon  them  to  pray  for  it,  in  order  that, 
under  its  auspices,  they  may  live  quiet  and  peaceable 
lives  in  all  godliness  and  honesty.  St.  Paul  must 
have  had  a  profound  sense  of  how  much  better  any 
strong  government  is  than  anarchy,  as  well  as  a 
painful  experience  of  how  dangerous  it  is  to  fall  into 
the  tender  mercies  of  the  mob,  when  he  was  able  to 
speak  thus  of  a  system  against  which  it  would  have 
been  easy,  from  his  own  recollections,  to  construct  a 
formidable  indictment. 

Not  dissimilar  is  the  attitude  of  Jesus.  He  lived 
under  three  governments — that  of  Herod,  the  te- 
trarch  of  Galilee,  that  of  the  Romans,  and  that  of 
the  Jews — and  painful  it  is  to  observe,  as  we  follow 
His  career  step  by  step,  that  He  is  never  brought 
into  contact  with  any  of  these  without  suffering 
injustice.  Pilate,  the  representative  of  the  Roman 
power,  indeed,  tried  to  protect  Him  from  the  malice 
of  the  Jews  ;  but  it  was  only  for  a  moment  that  law, 
in  his  hands,  did  honour  to  its  native  fairness  and 
majesty ;  for,  as  soon  as  his  own  interests  appeared 
to  be  threatened  through  the  endeavour  to  protect  the 
Innocent,  he  gave  way  to  the  fanaticism  of  the 
officials  and  the  demands  of  the  mob,  and  sur- 


360 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


rendered  the  Accused  to  the  will  of  His  persecutors. 
The  final  scenes  were  a  travesty  of  justice  and  the 
gravest  exhibition  the  world  has  ever  seen  of 
unrighteousness  masquerading  in  the  garb  of  legality. 
Nevertheless,  the  attitude  of  Jesus  all  along  to  law 
and  government  was  one  of  respect.  When  He  was 
challenged  by  the  Zealots  to  say  whether  or  not 
it  was  lawful  to  pay  tribute  to  Caesar — the  intention 
being  either  to  involve  Him  with  the  government 
if  He  answered  the  one  way,  or  to  deal  a  fatal  blow 
at  His  popularity  with  the  masses  if  He  answered  in 
the  other — He  did  not  hesitate  to  run  the  latter  risk 
by  making  His  famous  reply,  “  Render  unto  Caesar 
the  things  that  are  Caesar’s,  and  unto  God  the  things 
that  are  God’s.”  By  Von  Ranke  this  has  been  called 
the  greatest  of  all  the  sayings  of  our  Lord  ;  this 
being  an  historian’s  estimate;  for  the  whole  of  modern 
history  may  be  looked  upon  as  a  series  of  ex¬ 
periments  to  ascertain  what  is  Caesar’s  and  what  is 
God’s.  It  was  singularly  characteristic  of  Him  who 
uttered  it  ;  for  it  did  not  directly  and  in  so  many 
words  answer  the  question,  but  put  His  opponents 
into  the  hole  into  which  they  had  tried  to  push  Him. 
Still,  it  was  full  of  respect,  and  even  of  a  kind  of 
awe,  for  the  great  power  referred  to.  Similarly, 
when  challenged  to  pay  the  temple  tax  to  the 
local  Jewish  authority,  He  did  so,  although  accom¬ 
panying  the  act  by  an  assertion  of  His  right  to 
refuse,  expressed  in  terms  in  which  the  lightest 


THE  STATE 


361 


banter  was  combined  with  a  grave  and  solemn 
meaning.*  The  only  lawful  authority  to  which  He 
displayed  something  like  contempt  was  that  of  His 
own  prince,  whom  He  called  “  that  fox,”  when 
warned  of  his  intention  to  kill  Him,  and  whom  He 
refused  to  grace  with  a  single  word  of  recognition, 
when  He  stood  at  his  bar  ;  but  the  behaviour  of  this 
unmanly  tyrant  to  His  friend  and  forerunner,  the 
Baptist,  is  enough  to  explain  and  to  justify  the 
rebuke  ;  and  the  silence  of  the  Saviour  was  intended 
to  speak  louder  than  any  words  in  the  conscience  of 
the  husband  of  Herodias.f 

Jesus  was,  indeed,  well  enough  aware  of  the 
difference  between  the  spirit  which  He  had  come 
to  breathe  into  the  atmosphere  of  humanity  and  that 
which  generally  inspires  the  conduct  of  kings — just 
as  well  as  He  was  aware  of  the  contrast  between 


*  By  taxation  the  State  is  supplied  with  the  means  necessary 
for  carrying  on  its  operations.  Perhaps  by  nothing  else  is  the 
enormous  power  wielded  by  the  State  made  so  manifest  as  by  the 
money  it  can  put  into  any  scheme  which  it  has  on  hand.  Slow 
and  laborious  are  the  efforts  of  voluntary  liberality  in  com¬ 
parison  with  what  can  be  done  by  those  who  are  able  to  dip 
their  hands  into  the  public  purse. 

+  There  was,  however,  a  deeper  reason.  Herod  was  coming 
between  Him  and  His  duty  to  God  ;  and  He  who  had  said, 
“  Render  unto  Caesar  the  things  that  are  Caesar’s, ”  had  said 
also,  “Render  unto  God  the  things  which  are  God’s.”  There  is 
a  region  into  which  human  law  and  government  dare  not  intrude 
— the  domain  of  conscience.  Of  freedom  of  conscience  this 
great  saying  is  the  Magna  Charta,  observes  Jacoby,  Neutesta- 
mentliche  Ethik ,  p.  130. 


362 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


the  garb  and  fare  of, the  Baptist  and  the  habits  of 
those  who  live  “delicately”  in  kings’  courts.  “Ye 
know,”  said  He  to  the  disciples,  “  that  the  princes 
of  the  Gentiles  exercise  dominion  over  them,  and 
they  that  are  great  exercise  authority  upon  them  ; 
but  it  shall  not  be  so  among  you ;  but,  whosoever 
will  be  great  among  you,  let  him  be  your  minister, 
and,  whosoever  is  chief  among  you,  let  him  be  your 
servant ;  even  as  the  Son  of  man  came  not  to  be 
ministered  unto  but  to  minister,  and  to  give  His  life 
a  ransom  for  many”  This  is  one  of  the  utterances 
which  have  turned  the  world  upside  down ;  it  is 
performing  this  process  still  ;  and  it  will  be  doing 
so  till  the  end  of  time.  The  dispute  among  the 
Twelve,  occasioned  by  the  ambitious  request  of 
James  and  John,  abetted  by  their  mother  Salome, 
shows  how  foreign  the  sentiment  was  at  the  time 
even  to  the  inner  circle  of  those  about  Jesus,  being 
the  possession  of  Himself  alone.  But  it  shines  by 
its  own  light ;  and,  however  slow  may  be  the  process 
by  which  it  breaks  through  the  mists  of  selfishness 
and  evil  custom,  it  is  bound  to  win  acceptance  more 
and  more.  It  is  a  new  ideal  of  greatness.  As 
embodied  in  the  practice  of  kings  and  courts,  great¬ 
ness  was  measured  by  the  service  which  could  be 
demanded  and  obtained  from  the  largest  number  of 
inferiors,  ready  to  bend  the  knee  to  the  superior’s 
orders  ;  but  kingliness,  according  to  Jesus,  consists  in 
the  very  reverse — in  the  amount  of  service  anyone  is 


THE  STATE 


363 


able,  in  virtue  of  high  position,  to  render,  and  the 
number  of  human  beings  he  is  able  to  benefit.  What 
an  inversion!  Yet  in  every  breast  there  is  some¬ 
thing  which  responds  to  it ;  and,  in  every  age  since 
this  was  uttered,  there  have  been  those  placed  high 
in  the  social  scale  who  have  looked  for  greatness 
in  no  other  direction.  In  this  case,  however,  as  in 
so  many  others,  Jesus  was  the  perfect  fulfiller  of 
His  own  maxim.  In  the  wilderness  He  was  tempted 
to  seek  greatness  of  the  usual  kind  ;  on  His  trial 
He  was  able  to  answer  in  the  affirmative  when  asked 
whether  He  were  the  King  of  the  Jews ;  yet  He 
steadily  pursued  Himself  the  course  He  laid  down 
for  others — that  ol  ministering,  not  being  ministered 
unto — and  He  gave  His  life  a  ransom  for  many. 

One  aspect  of  the  State  which  meant  much  for 
Jesus  was  its  connection  with  a  nation  and  a 
country.  This  brings  into  play  the  feelings  of 
patriotism,  which  are  nursed  by  such  circumstances 
as  the  beauty  of  a  country  and  the  memories  of 
great  characters  and  noble  actions  enshrined  in  its 
history.  It  might  have  been  thought,  a  priori , 
that  Jesus  was  too  spiritual  for  such  s^i-‘ 
and  some  have  represented  Him  as  being  too  con¬ 
scious  of  His  identity  with  all  humanity  to  stoop 
to  any  race  or  locality.  But  His  words  and  acts 
have  only  to  be  recalled  to  prove  the  contrary.  The 
beauty  of  the  landscapes  of  Galilee  glows  forever  in 
His  words,  and  we  have  the  same  evidence  that  all 


364 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


the  habits  and  customs  of  the  population  amidst 
which  He  grew  up  lived  in  His  affectionate  and 
admiring  observation.  Even  in  doing  His  peculiar 
work,  He  could,  as  has  been  remarked  already,  give 
it  as  a  reason  for  exerting  His  powers  that  the 
victim  of  disease  was  a  daughter  or  the  victim  of 
Pharisaic  contempt  a  son  of  Abraham.  The  great 
names  of  the  country’s  past  and  the  great  scenes  of 
its  history  were  continually  on  His  lips.  But,  if  all 
other  evidence  of  the  kind  were  lacking,  the  dirge 
pronounced  by  Him  over  the  capital  of  the  country 
would  be  sufficient  to  prove  how  deeply  the  name  of 
His  native  land  was  written  on  His  heart :  “  O  Jeru¬ 
salem,  Jerusalem,  which  killest  the  prophets  and  stonest 
them  that  art  sent  unto  thee,  how  often  would  I  have 
gathered  thy  children  together,  as  a  hen  doth  gather 
her  brood  under  her  wings,  and  ye  would  not !  ” 

This  preference  for  one  country  did  not,  however, 
in  His  mind  imply  any  disparagement  or  enmity 
towards  others.  Whenever,  during  His  short  life, 
Jesus  was  brought  into  contact  with  foreigners,  the 
impressions  were  mutually  cordial.  In  almost  His 
last  words  on  earth  He  charged  His  disciples  to 
evangelize  all  nations — that  is,  to  bind  them  together 
in  the  bonds  of  the  Gospel.  But,  as,  among  the 
countrymen  of  Jesus,  the  Mosaic  command  to  love 
one’s  neighbour  was  construed  as  if  it  were  at  the 
same  time  a  permission  to  hate  one’s  enemy,  so  has 
love  of  one’s  own  country  been  supposed  to  be  best 


THE  STATE 


365 


evinced  by  hostility  to  all  other  countries,  which 
were  to  be  attacked  and  plundered  whenever  the 
opportunity  occurred  of  doing  so  with  success.  One 
of  the  principal  vocations  of  the  State  is  acknow¬ 
ledged  to  be  the  defence  of  the  territory  of  the 
nation  from  foreign  invasion,  the  citizens  being  bound 
to  sacrifice  to  this  object  not  only  their  means  and 
services  but,  if  need  be,  their  lives.*  )(  The  raising  of 
armies  for  this  purpose  has,  however,  often  proved  a 
pretext  to  cover  designs  of  a  totally  different  com¬ 
plexion;  and  the  standing  armies  of  modern  states  are 
a  constant  menace  to  the  peace  of  the  world.  On  the 
construction  of  arms  and  armaments  the  money  pro¬ 
duced  by  industry  is  poured  out  like  water.  Myriads 
of  precious  lives  are  abstracted  from  the  blessed 
pursuits  of  peace  and,  in  the  army  and  navy,  shut  up 
in  a  strenuous  idleness  hardly  better  than  was  that 
of  the  monastery.  On  one  war,  begun  in  the  last 
year  of  the  nineteenth  century,  England  spent  more 
than  she  did  on  Foreign  Missions  during  the 
whole  of  that  century,  though  it  is  proudly  called 
the  Century  of  Missions.  Could  anything  be  more 
childish  than  the  plea  on  which  at  the  present 
moment  the  Christian  countries — even  the  Protestant 
countries — are  squandering  millions  on  the  building 
of  armaments  and  battleships,  the  one  doing  it 

*  All  that  can  be  said  by  way  of  arrest  on  the  obvious  and 
petulant  objections  to  war  will  be  found  in  a  sermon  on  War  in 
Mozley’s  University  Sermo?is. 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


366 


simply  because  the  other  is  doing  it?  This 
insane  cultivation  of  the  art  of  war  is  the  reproach 
and  breakdown  of  statesmanship.  There  was 
once  a  time  when  every  man  protected  his  own 
life  and  property,  avenging  his  own  wrong  with 
arms  in  his  hands  ;  but  civilisation  has  ended 
that  condition  of  things,  by  taking  the  arms  out  of 
the  hands  of  the  individual  and  placing  them  in  those 
of  the  State,  which  undertakes  the  individual’s 
righteous  cause.  Similarly,  not  so  very  long  ago, 
the  inhabitants  of  every  few  square  miles  of  country 
were  armed  against  all  their  surrounding  neighbours 
and  raided  the  adjoining  lands  at  every  opportunity. 
But  civilisation  has  taken  the  arms  out  of  the  hands 
of  the  clans  and  compelled  all  living  inside  the  State 
to  trust  their  defence  to  the  law.  This  is  civilisation. 
But  the  relations  of  states  to  states  are  still  on  the 
basis  of  barbarism,  the  European  nations  confronting 
one  another  armed  to  the  teeth.  It  is  for  statesman¬ 
ship  to  devise  a  remedy  for  this  condition  of  things  ; 
and  it  is  a  shame  that  it  has  not  been  found  long  ago. 
It  seems  to  lie  in  the  direction  of  arbitration — that  is, 
the  organization  of  all  the  civilised  nations  into  a  high 
Areopagus,  to  decide  the  quarrels  of  individual  states 
and  enforce  these  decrees  by  the  irresistible  will  of  all. 
But  no  such  device  will  ever  be  permanently  success¬ 
ful  without  the  diffusion  through  the  communities  to 
be  thus  united  of  the  spirit  of  Him  at  whose  birth 
the  angels  sang,  “  Peace  on  earth,  good-will  to  men.” 


\ 


EPILOGUE 


LORD,”  says  St.  Augustine,  “  give  what  Thou 


commandest,  and  then  command  what  Thou 


wilt.”  And  such  must  be  the  sentiment,  at  the  close  of 
an  exposition  like  the  foregoing,  of  every  earnest 
and  intelligent  reader.  Christ  must  give  what  He 
demands,  or  He  demands  far  more  than  can  possibly 
be  given  by  those  to  whom  His  demands  are 
addressed.  When  the  inward  and  searching  nature 
of  His  legislation  is  realised,  and  the  height  and  scope 
are  appreciated  of  the  character  and  service  to  which 
He  calls  mankind — especially  when  it  is  perceived  that 
His  ethical  teaching  includes  duties  to  God  as  well 
as  duties  to  man,  and  not  only  performance  in  the 
life  which  now  is  but  constant  preparation  for  that 
which  is  to  come — despair  must  seize  upon  the  human 
spirit,  unless  in  the  teaching  of  the  Master  there  is, 
besides  the  imperative  of  morality,  a  promise  of  super¬ 
natural  grace  and  assistance.  It  has  not  been  the 
direct  business  of  the  present  volume  to  set  this  forth 
— it  was  attempted  in  the  former  volume  on  His 
teaching  concerning  Himself — but  it  has  been  every¬ 
where  assumed  ;  and  it  recurs  ever  and  anon  in  the 


368 


THE  ETHIC  OF  JESUS 


record,  culminating  in  the  invitation,  “Come  unto  Me, 
all  ye  that  labour  and  are  heavy  laden,  and  I  will 
give  you  rest”  Jesus  lifts  up  a  far  higher  standard 
than  any  other  ethical  teacher  ;  but  little  would  He 
deserve  the  name  of  Saviour  if  this  were  all  He  did. 
To  demand  that  vastly  more  should  be  produced  out 
of  human  nature  than  had  ever  been  expected  from  it 
can  be  wise  and  beneficent  only  if  first  there  is  vastly 
more  put  into  it.  And  it  is  because  the  Saviour  does 
this — because  He  is  the  Giver  of  the  ethical  life  which 
He  demands — that  we  adore  Him  by  a  name  which 
is  above  every  name. 


APPENDIX 


I 


APPENDIX. 


THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  SOCIAL  TEACHING 

OF  JESUS  * 

IT  is  obvious  that  for  very  many  people  to-day 
of  all  creeds  and  classes  the  question  of  vital 
importance  is  what  is  conveniently  called  the  Social 
Problem,  the  problem  raised  by  poverty,  unemploy¬ 
ment,  drunkenness,  and  kindred  evils,  as  well  as,  more 
generally,  by  extreme  social  inequalities,  with  their 
consequent  disabilities,  favoured  by  our  present  social 
order.  It  is  not  only  that  great  masses  of  men  and 
women  are  looking  forward  with  intense  ardour  to  a 
reconstructed  society  in  which  the  heavy  burdens  at 
present  lying  on  them  will  be  lifted,  and  they  them¬ 
selves  will  enter  a  new  world  of  freedom  and  happiness ; 


*  Some  of  the  younger  ministers  and  elders  of  the  Church  to 
which  I  belong  have  been  interesting  themselves  deeply  in  the 
social  problem  and,  under  the  encouragement  of  the  General 
Assembly,  putting  themselves  into  touch  with  working  men,  for 
the  purpose  of  comprehending  their  point  of  view,  as  well  as 
ascertaining  at  first  hand  the  actual  facts  of  the  case.  My 
minister,  the  Rev.  Fred.  J.  Rae,  M.A.,  being  one  of  these,  I 
have  asked  him  to  be  good  enough  to  write  out  his  views ;  and, 
he  having  had  the  kindness  to  do  so,  these  are  here  printed  without 
any  alteration  whatever  ;  not  because  I  entirely  agree  with  them, 
but  because  the  question  is  urgent,  being  in  the  thoughts  of  earnest 
people  at  present  all  the  world  over  ;  and  it  is  right  that  the 
views  of  fresh  and  sympathetic  minds,  trying  to  understand 
the  message  of  the  Master  for  our  modern  conditions,  should 
find  expression. 


37* 


372 


THE  CHURCH  AND  THE 


but  others  also,  who  have  nothing  to  gain  by  any 
change,  are  concerning  themselves  seriously  with  the 
same  questions.  In  our  own  time  the  centre  of 
gravity  of  interest  and  urgency  is  being  largely 
transferred  from  the  intellectual  to  the  social  sphere. 
The  change  has  taken  place  in  the  last  twenty  years. 
One  can  easily  remember  when  the  questions  of 
absorbing  interest  were  entirely  theological.  But 
now  they  are  chiefly  economic.  Questions  of  theology 
will  never  cease  to  interest  men,  but  at  present  they 
have  been  displaced  from  their  supreme  position. 
The  thing  that  presses  is  the  cry  of  the  great  multi¬ 
tude  of  the  hungry,  the  poor  and  the  distressed ; 
and  the  worth  of  the  Christian  Gospel  is  being 
measured  by  its  power  to  answer  this  cry.  What 
we  are  facing  is  the  emergence  of  a  new  social 
conscience,  new  at  least  in  the  extent  of  its  influence, 
raising  grave  issues  and  making  urgent  demands, 
and  above  all  applying  its  own  tests  to  existing 
systems  both  religious  and  political.  Now,  in  this 
situation  two  questions  at  once  present  themselves 
of  critical  importance,  both  of  which  need  a  much 
clearer  answer  than  they  have  hitherto  received. 
First  of  all,  what  is  the  mind  of  Jesus  about  this 
problem  ?  did  He  raise  such  questions  at  all  ?  do 
His  life  and  His  teaching  give  us  any  clear  guidance 
in  relation  to  them  ?  And  secondly,  What  is  the 
duty  of  the  Church  in  this  crisis  ?  do  such  problems 
concern  her?  and,  if  they  do,  in  what  way,  and 
to  what  extent?  The  present  paper  is  an  attempt 
to  suggest  some  answer  to  both  these  questions.  It 
will  deal,  first,  with  the  social  teaching  of  Jesus  ;  then, 
on  the  basis  of  the  conclusions  reached,  with  the 
present  duty  of  the  Christian  Church. 


SOCIAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 


373 


I 

Perhaps  the  most  significant  part  of  the  social 
teaching  of  Jesus  is  to  be  found  in  the  plain  facts 
of  His  life.  His  mind  is  to  be  read  as  much,  if  not 
more,  in  what  He  was  and  what  He  did  as  in  what 
He  said.  And  while  that  is  true  in  regard  to  other 
matters,  it  has  special  force  here,  since  the  questions 
raised  by  the  social  problem  concern  the  ordinary 
life  of  men.  Now,  when  we  examine  the  life  of 
Jesus  as  recorded  in  the  Gospels,  we  find  three  facts 
of  great  importance  in  the  present  connection. 

I.  He  was  a  Poor  Man.  He  was  born  and  brought 
up  in  a  working-class  home.  His  friends  were  mainly 
working  men,  peasants  and  fisher  folk.  When  He 
became  a  public  teacher,  He  was  apparently  without 
any  means.  He  had  not  even  a  settled  home  of  His 
own,  and  when  He  died  He  left  nothing  behind  Him. 
The  fact  on  which  I  wish  to  lay  stress  is  that  this 
life,  to  which  the  world  looks  as  its  ideal,  was  lived 
in  entire  independence  of  wealth  and  position.  We 
do  read  of  a  “  bag,”  but  it  is  clear  that  its  contents 
were  used  chiefly  for  relieving  the  poor.  In  any 
case  the  wants  of  the  disciple  circle  must  have  been 
simple,  and  easily  met. 

The  true  lesson  of  this  fact  is  not  its  glorification 
of  poverty,  as  though  because  Jesus  was  poor  poverty 
is  not  an  evil.  This  inference  is  wrong  for  one  good 
reason  among  others.  The  poverty  of  a  Jewish 
peasant  at  that  time  was  a  very  different  thing  from 
the  poverty  we  see  in  the  slums  of  our  cities  to-day. 
It  was  a  clean,  self-respecting  poverty.  There  was 
enough  food,  and  there  was  always  sufficient  satis¬ 
faction  for  the  needo  of  the  day.  It  was  possible 


374 


THE  CHURCH  AND  THE 


to  live  the  fullest  and  best  kind  of  life  in  such 
circumstances.  But  the  poverty  that  is  a  problem 
to-day  is  a  grinding,  hateful,  disabling  thing,  often 
insanitary,  deficient  in  the  ordinary  and  seemly 
amenities  and  even  decencies  of  life,  deprived  of  the 
resources  necessary  for  anything  like  happiness. 
And  even  when  it  is  not  so  bad  as  this,  it  means 
want  and  hunger,  a  bare  home  and  constant  care. 
One  cannot  hold  up  the  poverty  of  Jesus  to  people 
living  in  such  conditions  and  ask  them  to  be  content. 
His  circumstances  have  no  resemblance  to  theirs 
at  all. 

The  social  significance  of  this  fact  in  the  life  of 
Jesus  lies  in  other  directions.  For  one  thing,  His 
independence  of  wealth  and  position  shows  that  these 
things  are  not  essential  to  the  true  life  as  God  wills 
it.  We  may  even  say  that  simplicity  and  supremacy 
over  merely  external  conditions  are  essential  to  this 
life.  And  if  that  be  a  true  interpretation  of  the  fact,  it 
has  a  direct  bearing  on  one  feature  of  modern  life — its 
passion  for  wealth,  for  material  comfort  and  luxury. 
The  Christian  attitude  to  wealth  and  position  cannot 
be  unaffected  by  the  fact  that  Jesus  was  indifferent 
to  them.  If  this  independence  were  imitated  by 
His  followers,  some  part  of  the  urgency  of  the  social 
problem  would  be  relieved.  At  least  a  temper  would 
be  created  in  which  the  appeal  of  that  problem  would 
make  itself  heard. 

But  the  social  significance  of  Jesus’  poverty  is  not 
exhausted  by  that  reflection.  It  has  a  lesson  of  a 
different  kind  in  the  discouragement  it  offers  to  the 
idea  that  the  true  welfare  of  mankind  is  to  be  sought 
in  schemes  of  social  betterment  alone.  The  present 
tendency  of  social  thought  is  strongly  in  this  direc- 


SOCIAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 


375 


tion.  Socialist  theories  especially  take  little  account 
of  anything  but  purely  material  conditions.  It  is 
tacitly  assumed  by  many  writers  and  speakers  that 
if  physical  comfort  were  more  equally  distributed 
all  would  be  well,  and  the  millennium  of  happiness 
and  peace  achieved  at  last.  There  is  of  course  an 
important  truth  behind  this  contention.  It  may  be 
admitted  that  the  measures  of  reform  and  amelio¬ 
ration  referred  to  are  both  important  and  essential. 
But,  however  urgent  such  measures  may  be  for  the 
well-being  of  the  masses,  and  especially  of  the  socially 
distressed  among  them,  it  is  not  to  such  measures 
alone  we  can  look  for  the  uplifting  of  their  condition. 
Jesus  at  any  rate  lived  chiefly  for  other  things.  His 
simple  wants  satisfied,  He  regarded  the  spiritual 
possessions  of  life  as  of  supreme  value — character, 
truth,  and  the  will  of  God.  “  A  man’s  life,”  He  said, 
“consisteth  not  in  the  abundance  of  the  things  which 
he  possesseth.”  It  consists  rather  in  knowing  God 
and  living  in  His  obedience.  And  therefore  the 
poverty  of  Jesus  supplies  a  needed  corrective  to  the 
whole  attitude  of  mind  to  social  problems  which 
leaves  out  the  spiritual  forces,  and  ignores  their  vital 
influence  in  the  making  of  men,  and  even  in  the 
making  of  their  happiness  and  well-being. 

2.  His  emphasis  on  Joy.  Jesus  has  often  been 
called  the  Man  of  Sorrows,  and  this  conception  of 
His  life  has  become  a  tradition  largely  owing  to  the 
influence  of  art.  But  the  impression  left  on  us  by 
the  Gospels  is  different.  It  is  rather  that  of  geniality 
He  is  often  present  at  feasts.  One  of  His  first 
miracles  was  performed  at  a  wedding.  He  was 
called  by  His  enemies  a  “gluttonous  man  and  a 
wine-bibber  ” ;  and  though  the  words  were  a  vile 


376 


THE  CHURCH  AND  THE 


slander,  we  can  recognise  the  spirit  in  His  life  that 
made  such  a  slander  possible.  Perhaps  the  two  most 
revealing  facts  in  this  connection,  however,  were  His 
own  words  contrasting  the  ascetic  temper  of  the 
Baptist  with  His  own  more  sunny  temper  (John 
came  neither  eating  nor  drinking,  while  the  Son  of 
man  came  eating  and  drinking) ;  and  His  refusal 
to  allow  His  disciples  to  fast,  on  the  ground  that 
the  note  of  their  lives  was  to  be  one  not  of  gloom, 
but  of  joy.  It  is  true  Jesus  was  also,  in  a  deep  and 
precious  sense,  the  Man  of  Sorrows,  but  the  spirit 
of  His  life  was  one  of  brightness  and  happiness. 

And  not  only  so,  but  it  was  His  aim  to  bring 
the  same  sunshine  into  the  lives  of  others.  We  have 
just  seen  that  He  wished  His  disciples  to  have  it. 
But  this  may  be  claimed  also  as  the  motive  of  His 
works  of  mercy.  These  beneficent  deeds  have  been 
too  much  dealt  with  on  their  theological  side.  They 
are  represented  as  containing  a  revelation  of  divine 
love.  But  this  aspect  of  them  may  be  easily  over¬ 
emphasized.  It  tends  to  give  the  impression  of  Jesus 
as  always  acting  in  an  “  official  ”  way,  always  doing 
things  in  a  character.  But  if  we  follow  the  guidance 
of  the  Gospels,  we  receive  the  impression  that  Jesus 
did  these  gracious  deeds  because  they  were  needed, 
and  because  He  wished  to  remove  from  people’s  lives 
the  things  that  prevented  them  rejoicing  in  life  and 
in  the  gifts  of  God  in  the  world  about  them.  The 
blind,  the  leper,  the  impotent,  the  paralytic,  the 
sinner,  were  blessed  because  Jesus  found  them  dis¬ 
abled  in  one  way  and  another  from  the  life  of  joy 
which  He  Himself  lived  and  wished  others  to  live. 

If  this  be  a  true  impression,  it  surely  vindicates 
for  men  and  especially  for  the  poorest  and  the 


SOCIAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 


377 


most  distressed,  the  right  to  a  life  of  happiness, 
a  life  that  is  free  to  rejoice  in  God  and  in  God’s 
world  and  in  their  own  powers.  Whatever  ascetic 
element  was  in  our  Lord’s  teaching,  He  had  no 
sympathy  with  the  ascetic  view  of  life.  And  His 
whole  attitude  to  others  proclaimed  that  He  desired 
the  joy  that  filled  His  own  life  to  be  the  possession 
of  all.  Jesus  wished  to  make  men  happy  and  to 
lift  from  them  the  burdens  that  made  happiness 
impossible.  And  when  wre  turn  to  the  social  con¬ 
ditions  of  the  present  day  with  this  discovery,  it 
surely  becomes  clear  at  once  that  much  in  them 
is  condemned  by  the  mind  of  Jesus.  Multitudes 
of  our  fellow  creatures  are  living  and  working  under 
conditions  that  make  such  a  life  as  Jesus  has 
vindicated  for  all  an  impossibility.  Sweating,  un¬ 
duly  low  wages,  unemployment,  bad  housing,  with 
all  their  sad  attendant  evils,  are  facts  in  our  social 
system  which  in  the  light  of  this  thought  of  Jesus 
are  seen  to  be  flagrantly  wrong.  Jesus  tried  to 
deliver  men  from  just  such  conditions  as  these.  It 
is  generally  a  precarious  thing  to  speculate  as  to 
what  Jesus  would  do  if  He  were  alive  to-day,  but 
we  cannot  be  wrong  in  saying  that  these  are  the 
evils  He  would  set  Himself  to  cure,  in  order  that 
men  and  women  who  are  oppressed  by  them  should 
have  a  chance  of  living  the  life  for  which  God 
designed  them.  The  very  existence  of  such  evils  in 
a  society  that  claims  to  be  Christian  is  an  insup¬ 
portable  anomaly.  Apart  from  any  other  reason,  J esus’ 
life  of  joy  and  Jesus’  ministry  of  joy  make  it  impera¬ 
tive  that  there  should  be  nothing  in  the  lives  of  the 
poor  that  makes  His  own  joy  inaccessible  to  them, 
so  far  at  least  as  His  followers  can  prevent  it. 


378 


THE  CHURCH  AND  THE 


3.  His  peculiar  devotion  to  the  outcast  and  op¬ 
pressed  classes.  This  is  a  very  obvious  feature  of 
the  life  of  Jesus.  His  constant  preoccupation  was 
the  care  of  the  poor,  the  despairing,  those  who  were 
down,  those  who  were  in  trouble,  those  who  were 
victims  of  evil  habit,  and  those  who  were  despised 
or  neglected.  This  may  of  course  very  easily  be 
exaggerated.  Renan  exaggerates  it  when  he  says 
that  the  Gospel  was  one  simply  for  the  poor.  But 
there  is  some  ground  for  such  an  overstatement  in 
the  words  of  Jesus,  especially  as  they  are  given  by 
Luke.  It  is  chiefly  in  His  conduct,  however,  that 
this  fact  is  illustrated.  And  about  the  conduct  of 
Jesus  in  this  respect  two  things  are  to  be  noted. 

(1)  He  gave  Himself  to  such  people.  He  brought 
His  own  goodness  and  joy  and  faith  into  personal 
contact  with  the  misery,  the  spiritual  emptiness, 
and  the  lovelessness  of  their  lot.  This  was  what 
awakened  the  wonder  of  the  publicans  and  the 
deep  gratitude  of  the  sinners.  And  this  was  the 
saving  element  in  His  relation  to  them.  One  might 
be  accused  of  commonplace  here,  were  it  not  that 
this  is  perhaps  the  special  feature  of  Jesus’  social 
teaching  that  needs  to  be  most  impressed  on  con¬ 
ventional  Christianity  to-day.  One  of  the  most 
serious  facts  in  our  present  situation  is  the  division 
between  the  West  End  and  the  East  End,  a  division 
that  is  largely  unbridged.  The  average  Christian 
does  not  feel  any  obligation  to  come  into  personal 
contact  with  the  East  End.  He  has  an  impression 
that  missionaries  are  doing  all  that  is  needed,  and 
he  is  not  unwilling  to  tax  himself  in  order  to  provide 
such  official  workers.  It  need  hardly  be  said,  how¬ 
ever,  that  this  is  not  the  conduct  to  be  learned  from 


SOCIAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 


379 


Jesus’  example.  His  action  was  not  “official,”  it 
was  spontaneous,  prompted  by  His  love  and  His 
conscience  of  the  burdens  of  the  “  weary  and  heavy- 
laden.”  He  did  not  act  as  He  did  because  He  was 
a  “  Saviour,”  but  because  He  saw  men  and  women 
who  needed  Him,  and  because  with  love  in  His  heart 
He  was  constrained  to  draw  them  up  into  His  own 
pure  joy  and  to  impart  to  them  the  hope  and  faith  in 
which  He  lived.  There  are  many  in  our  churches 
who  do  not  feel  this  constraint  at  all,  between  whom 
and  the  needs  of  the  poor  and  distressed  there  is  a 
great  gulf  fixed.  And  this  is  one  of  the  gravest  of 
our  social  dangers,  grave  for  the  Church  and  grave,  it 
may  be,  in  its  results  to  the  comfortable  classes  them¬ 
selves.  At  any  rate,  the  example  of  Jesus  in  this 
respect  has  a  clear  social  significance  for  His  true 
followers. 

(2)  But  it  is  to  be  noted  particularly  that  not  only 
did  Jesus  give  Himself  to  these  people,  but  He  set 
Himself  to  deal  with  their  social  and  physical,  as  well 
as  their  religious,  needs.  He  had  a  gospel  to  take 
to  them  ;  but  it  needs  to  be  clearly  brought  out  that 
while  Jesus  preached  the  Gospel  to  the  poor,  He 
made  it  His  business  to  remove  from  their  lives  what 
rendered  it  difficult  for  them  to  receive  the  Gospel. 
He  healed  the  sick.  He  fed  the  hungry.  He  gave 
friendship  to  the  lonely.  He  restored  self-respect 
to  those  who  had  lost  it.  He  not  only  revealed 
to  them  their  sonship  to  God,  but  He  made  it,  at 
the  same  time,  at  least  possible  for  them  to  under¬ 
stand  what  that  meant  and  to  live  it.  And  in  this 
He  showed  the  way  for  all  true  saving  work  to-day. 
Without  at  present  raising  the  question  of  the 
Church’s  duty,  it  seems  clear  that  this  serious  atten- 


380 


THE  CHURCH  AND  THE 


tion  to  the  social  needs  of  the  time  is  the  path  of 
Christian  discipleship.  One  of  the  main  difficulties  in 
the  way  of  Christian  workers  to-day,  a  difficulty  that 
sometimes  fills  them  with  despair,  is  that  their  Gospel 
is  preached  to  people  who  are  disabled  from  believing, 
and  often  even  from  understanding  it  by  the  con¬ 
ditions  in  which  they  pass  their  lives.  It  need  not  be 
denied  that,  when  the  Gospel  is  once  in  a  man’s  heart, 
it  will  change  his  environment,  but  the  trouble  is 
to  get  it  there.  With  what  hope  can  one  preach 
Christ  to  men  and  women  besotted  with  drink, 
barbarised  by  their  daily  existence,  accustomed  to 
insanitary  and  even  indecent  surroundings?  And 
again,  with  what  effect  can  one  address  men  and 
women  embittered  by  the  idea  that  the  very  religion 
one  preaches  is  bound  up  with  the  system  that 
perpetuates  their  wrongs  ?  What  spiritual  life  or 
spiritual  interest  is  possible  in  these  circumstances  ? 
It  is  not  enough  to  open  mission  halls  and  preach 
a  spiritual  gospel.  It  is  not  enough  even  to  organize 
Institutional  Churches.  These  are  not  really  solving 
the  problem.  What  is  wanted  is  what  Jesus  gave, 
a  definite  effort  to  deal  with  the  facts  which  stand 
in  the  way  of  happiness  and  freedom  for  the  very 
poor.  What  is  wanted  is  a  brave  Christian  handling 
of  such  facts  as  have  already  been  mentioned — sweated 
labour,  unemployment,  and  low  wages.  One  reason 
why  this  effort  is  not  made  is  that  so  many  men 
who  are  identified  with  Christianity  are  interested 
in  the  perpetuation  of  these  evils.  But  such  hin¬ 
drances  ought  not  to  keep  the  Christian  conscience 
from  asserting  itself  and  taking  the  way  of  Jesus. 
For  until  that  way  is  taken,  and  an  honest  and 
courageous  witness  is  borne  by  Christian  men  in 


SOCIAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 


regard  to  these  intolerable  evils,  the  Gospel  of  Christ 

will  find  its  way  to  the  hearts  of  the  poor  and 
the  outcast  closed. 

II 

The  explicit  teaching  of  Jesus  in  His  words  does 
not  come  behind  His  example  in  its  social  significance. 
The  words  of  Jesus  are,  in  fact,  simply  the  translation 
of  His  own  life  into  instruction  for  others,  the  means 
by  which  He  endeavoured  to  impart  to  His  disciples 
the  aims  and  motives  that  inspired  and  governed 
His  conduct. 

1.  The  first  point  to  notice  is  the  severe  criticism 
His  teaching  contains  of  the  religious  world  and 
the  religious  authorities  of  His  own  time  and  people. 
His  spirit  was  entirely  opposite  to  theirs.  His  conduct 
to  the  “  outsiders  ,J  was  in  itself  a  stern  rebuke  of 
theirs.  And  they  were  not  blind  to  this.  They 
hated  Jesus  for  His  unconventional  attitude  to  the 
outcast  classes  at  least  as  much  as  for  anything 
else  He  did  or  said.  But  He  was  not  slow  to  give 
utterance  to  this  implied  criticism.  So  evil  did  He 
consider  their  practice  in  this  respect,  so  unworthy 
of  religious  guides,  that  He  denounced  it  in  lan¬ 
guage  the  fearless  courage  of  which  was  enough 
of  itself  to  have  made  His  doom  certain.  He  stigma¬ 
tized  in  burning  words  their  cruel  and  heedless 
comfort,  their  selfish  hardness,  their  frigid  respecta¬ 
bility,  and,  above  all,  their  Olympian  indifference  to 
the  sin  and  distress  of  those  whom  God  still  loved 
as  His  children.  It  is  evident  that  His  whole  soul 
was  in  these  denunciations  of  Pharisaism  and  Scribism, 
and  that  He  felt  deeply  the  contrast  between  their 
spirit  and  that  which  ought  to  possess  true  religious 


3§2 


THE  CHURCH  AND  THE 


guides.  And  it  must  therefore  be  inferred  that  these 
scathing  words  of  Jesus  contain  not  only  an  essential 
part  of  His  social  teaching,  but  a  very  important 
part,  because  they  reveal,  if  only  negatively,  His 
deepest  thought  and  feeling  about  what  the  attitude 
of  religion  should  be  to  the  social  needs  of  a  people. 
Nothing  can  be  very  much  worse  in  Jesus’  estimate 
than  the  selfish  indifference  of  the  Pharisee,  that 
religious  habit  which  is  concerned  mainly  about 
details  of  worship  and  creed,  about  the  prosperity 
of  a  sect,  about  petty  questions  of  policy  and  party, 
while  vice  and  misery  and  godlessness  remain  un¬ 
redeemed.  Is  it  too  much  to  say  that  these  tre¬ 
mendous  utterances  of  Jesus  have  still  a  much-needed 
message  for  the  religious  world  of  our  day  ?  Can  we 
read  without  conviction  or  shame  the  scathing  lan¬ 
guage  in  which  Jesus  brands  with  His  contempt 
a  religion  that  is  immersed  in  what  are,  after  all, 
trifling  matters  of  selfish  concern,  while  the  great 
world  is  lying  in  the  grip  of  evils  that  need  for 
their  cure  all  the  love  and  devotion  and  sacrifice 
which  the  religious  can  give? 

2.  Turning  from  the  negative  aspect  of  our  Lord’s 
social  teaching,  we  are  met  by  His  great  positive 
message  in  the  proclamation  of  the  kingdom  of 
God.  This  phrase  was  constantly  on  His  lips  and 
in  His  mind  (it  is  found  some  hundred-and-twelve 
times  in  the  Gospels),  and  represents  a  large  part  of 
what  Jesus  had  to  say  on  social  problems.  A  very 
great  deal  has  of  course  been  written  on  this  theme 
which  is  more  or  less  familiar  to  those  interested  in 
New  Testament  Theology.  It  will  therefore  merely 
be  necessary  here  to  deal  with  it  briefly  and  only  in 
its  bearing  on  our  main  theme.  - 


SOCIAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 


383 


(1)  First  of  all  the  kingdom  of  God  was  a  spiritual 
reality.  It  was  composed  of  men  and  women  who 
are  all  children  of  the  one  Father.  Jesus  laid 
constant  emphasis  on  the  necessity  of  regeneration, 
on  the  value  of  an  experience  of  sonship  to  God,  on 
the  value  of  the  individual  soul.  This  was  how  the 
kingdom  was  to  come,  through  the  grace  of  God 
working  on  individuals  and  making  them  children 
of  God,  or  enabling  them  to  realise  that  they  were 
children  of  God.  The  kingdom  of  God  was  a 
kingdom  of  souls  redeemed  by  God’s  grace  and 
awakened  to  the  Father’s  love.  The  very  keenest 
social  reformers  must  acknowledge  the  prominence 
of  this  spiritual  element  in  the  words  of  Jesus.  They 
give  the  individual  his  full  rights.  The  soul  is  the 
key  of  the  position.  And  all  this  implies  that  it 
is  to  the  grace  of  God  we  must  look  for  the  power 
to  deal  with  the  needs  of  the  world.  That  is  part 
of  the  message  of  Jesus  in  this  great  conception  of 
the  kingdom.  “  Without  Me  ye  can  do  nothing.” 
It  is  very  difficult  in  looking  at  any  great  question 
to  keep  both  sides  in  view,  but  it  is  especially  im¬ 
portant  to  do  so  in  this  matter  of  social  reform. 
It  is  often  said,  for  example,  that  it  is  futile  to 
change  the  circumstances  of  a  man  while  you  leave 
the  man  himself  unchanged.  As  a  statement  of  one 
side  of  the  truth  that  may  not  only  be  admitted,  but 
it  may  be  supported  by  the  authority  of  Jesus.  It 
is  the  burden  of  many  of  His  sayings.  And  it  is 
a  truth  that  needs  to  be  kept  clearly  to  the  front. 
We  can  have  no  hope  of  solving  the  hardest  of  our 
social  problems  without  the  Gospel  of  Christ.  And 
whatever  system  omits  this  factor  of  the  importance  of 
individual  regeneration  is  bound  to  fail  in  its  social  aim. 


3^4 


THE  CHURCH  AND  THE 


(2)  But  the  kingdom  of  God  was  also  a  great 
social  ideal.  It  meant  to  Jesus  a  regenerated  society. 
It  was  His  dream  of  the  future,  of  the  social  system 
transfigured  by  love  and  mutual  service.  It  is  surely 
no  irreverence  to  say  that  Jesus  was  the  greatest  of 
all  the  Dreamers  who  have  lifted  the  world  up  and 
on  by  their  glorious  Visions.  And  we  cannot  be 
wrong  in  interpreting  His  dream  on  social  lines. 
What  He  saw  was  a  society  of  men  and  women  happy 
instead  of  miserable,  bound  into  a  brotherhood  instead 
of  being  alienated  by  class  feeling,  living  trustfully 
in  the  peace  of  God  instead  of  being  tormented 
by  care,  contributing  each  and  all  to  the  common 
welfare  instead  of  striving  each  one  for  his  own 
supremacy.  It  is  a  noble  spectacle  the  Gospels 
present  to  us  of  this  one  Soul  preaching  this  splendid 
ideal  in  an  almost  outworn  world,  casting  this  thought 
of  a  transfigured  society  into  the  life  of  mankind 
to  act  at  once  as  a  ferment  and  a  magnet  in  our 
speculation  and  our  striving.  It  could  hardly  be 
forgotten.  And  in  point  of  fact  it  never  has.  It 
has  been  continuously  operative  and  creative  of  great 
movements.  It  was  behind  Dante’s  great  vision  of 
a  universal  spiritual  monarchy.  It  was  behind 
Mazzini’s  efforts  for  a  united  Italy.  It  was  the 
inspiration  of  Maurice  and  Kingsley.  And,  how¬ 
ever  far  many  of  our  present-day  writers  on  social 
reform  may  conceive  themselves  to  be  from  the 
theology  of  Christianity,  it  is  the  real  source  of  that 
thought  of  a  new  social  order  which  has  begun  to 
mean  so  much  to  our  generation.  Perhaps  it  is 
doing  less  than  justice  to  the  social  ideal  of  Jesus 
to  call  it  a  dream.  P'or  there  is  nothing  vague  in 
it.  It  was  a  definite  programme,  a  community  of 


SOCIAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 


3§5 


men  and  women,  free,  happy  and  strong.  And  when 
one  thinks  of  what  it  was  to  Jesus  Himself,  of  the 
passion  and  faith  with  which  He  preached  it,  one 
cannot  help  feeling  how  great  a  creative  force  is  in 
it,  and  how  needful  it  is  that  we  should  grasp  it 
and  hold  it  up  before  ourselves.  We  would  not 
find  our  social  problems  nearly  so  hard  if  Christians 
to-day  believed  in  this  renewed  social  order  and  prayed 
for  it  and  strove  for  it  as  Jesus  did. 

(3)  This  consideration  receives  added  force  when 
we  remember  that  in  the  intention  of  Jesus  His 
social  ideal  was  to  be  fulfilled  by  personal  service 
on  the  part  of  His  disciples.  The  Gospels  leave  us 
in  no  doubt  of  His  purpose  or  His  method.  He 
knew  that  the  coming  of  the  kingdom  lay  in  the 
future,  and  He  therefore  proceeded  to  train  men  to 
live  for  it.  He  put  His  own  spirit  in  them,  His  love 
for  the  poor,  His  unworldliness,  His  faith,  and  He 
sent  them  out  to  take  the  kingdom,  which  was  thus 
present  in  their  lives,  to  the  lives  of  others,  and 
especially  to  the  poor,  the  sick  and  the  outcast. 
And  thus  all  His  followers  were  bound  to  the  service 
of  the  kingdom — to  spread  it,  to  make  it  a  reality, 
to  carry  its  brotherhood,  joy,  holiness  and  faith  to 
the  masses  of  men  who  were  outside  it.  And  service 
to  the  kingdom  was  service  both  to  the  souls  and 
bodies  of  men.  The  parable  of  the  Good  Samaritan 
and  the  closing  paragraph  of  the  twenty-fifth  chapter 
of  St.  Matthew  may  be  cited  as  the  most  striking 
of  many  passages  embodying  such  teaching. 

It  is  from  this  point  of  view  also  that  Jesus  looked 
at  all  particular  social  questions.  His  teaching  on 
wealth  may  be  given  as  an  example.  Wealth  is  a 
trust  (the  parable  of  the  Talents);  it  is  also  a  peril 

25 


I 


386 


THE  CHURCH  AND  THE 


(the  parable  of  Dives  and  Lazarus) ;  and,  finally,  it 
is  a  severe  test  (the  rich  young  ruler).  His  words 
about  riches  are  always  discouraging  :  “  How  hardly 
shall  they  that  have  riches  enter  into  the  kingdom 
of  heaven,”  “  Lay  not  up  for  yourselves  treasures 
upon  earth,”  “Blessed  are  ye  poor.”  If  it  cannot 
be  said  that  He  condemns  wealth,  He  certainly  dis¬ 
courages  in  His  disciples  the  heaping  up  of  worldly 
treasure.  But  this  can  only  be  understood  when  we 
perceive  His  point  of  view.  The  kingdom  is  to  be 
first.  Everything  in  His  disciples’  lives  is  to  serve 
the  ends  of  the  kingdom.  Everything  else  is  of 
small  moment,  and  whatever  is  a  peril  to  this  is 
dangerous.  “  Seek  first  the  kingdom  of  God.” 

3.  In  addition  to  these  two  elements  in  our  Lord’s 
social  teaching — His  criticism  of  the  contemporary 
religious  world  and  His  ideal  of  a  renewed  social  order 
— another  must  be  mentioned  which  runs  through  a 
large  part  of  His  teaching,  and  is  at  the  same  time 
of  great  social  value — namely,  His  demand  for  con¬ 
siderateness.  “  Whatsoever  ye  would  that  men  should 
do  to  you,  do  ye  even  so  to  them.”  Bishop  Gore,  in  his 
Bampton  lectures,  singles  this  out  as  the  character¬ 
istic  Christian  grace.  It  is  a  special  development  of 
the  duty  of  love,  love  that  is  thoughtful  and  especially 
imaginative — “  Love  thy  neighbour  as  thyself.”  That  is 
to  say,  think  yourself  into  his  place  and  circumstances, 
and  then  give  him,  not  what  you  would  desire  if  you 
were  in  his  place,  but  what  you  would  then  deem  fair 
and  therefore  right.  In  these  circumstances,  what 
treatment  would  do  you  most  good,  and  bring  the 
best  out  of  you,  and  be  at  the  same  time  just  to  you  ? 
This  principle  of  thoughtful  love  strikes  at  the  root 
of  individual  selfishness,  of  class  feeling,  and  par- 


SOCIAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 


387 


ticularly  of  self-seeking  economics.  How  powerfully 
it  would  contribute  to  the  solution  of  some  of  our 
hardest  problems,  if  it  were  practised,  can  easily  be 
shown.  The  relation  of  employers  to  employed  is 
a  good  instance.  Probably  no  State  enactments 
would  make  this  relation  satisfactory;  but  the  element 
in  it  that  creates  the  greatest  part  of  the  trouble 
would  disappear  at  once  if  there  was  considerateness 
on  both  sides.  A  still  better  example  is  the  existence 
of  sweated  labour.  If  Christian  men  asked  themselves 
what  this  really  would  mean  for  them ,  what  life 
under  such  conditions  would  mean  for  them  or  their 
daughters,  the  thing  would  not  be  tolerated  any 
longer.  It  may  be  urged  that  this  could  never  be 
made  the  law  of  industrial  organization.  But  that 
is  not  how  the  principle  is  to  be  applied.  It  is  an 
individual  law  of  the  spirit  ;  it  is  a  matter  of  loyalty 
to  the  conscience  which  Jesus  has  created  in  His 
followers.  And  there  cannot  be  the  slightest  doubt 
that,  if  it  were  widely  applied,  it  would  change  the 
face  of  society.  Nor  can  it  be  for  a  moment 
admitted  that  we  are  dealing  with  a  principle  which 
is  visionary  and  unpractical — good  enough  for  theory, 
but  not  for  real  life.  For  it  is  just  this  principle 
that  has  governed  the  development  of  the  social 
conscience  and  been  the  impulse  in  social  progress, 
as  Mr.  Kidd  has  so  ably  shown  in  his  Social  Evolution. 
What  is  it  that  has  compelled  men  living  in  comfort 
themselves  to  concern  themselves  with  the  condition 
of  their  less  fortunate  brethren  but  just  this  very 
social  principle  ?  It  is  a  striking  thing  that  social 
reform  has  so  generally  come  from  above,  and  not 
been  forced  from  below.  At  the  present  time  the 
most  advanced  thinkers  on  social  questions  and  the 


388 


THE  CHURCH  AND  THE 


most  extreme  reformers  are  to  be  found,  not  in 
the  working  class,  but  in  the  upper  middle  class, 
which  is  the  most  comfortable  and  most  refined 
element  in  our  population.  The  inference  from  this 
is  not  that  such  reform  is  merely  academic,  but  that 
the  movements  that  have  raised  classes  out  of  social 
oppression  have  generally  come  from  the  awakened 
conscience  of  those  who  were  themselves  living  in 
comfort,  but  who  were  compelled  by  this  very 
imaginative  love,  that  Jesus  lays  down  as  the  guide 
of  our  social  conduct,  to  think  themselves  into  the 
condition  of  those  less  fortunately  situated.  And 
this  historical  fruitfulness  of  the  principle  of  con¬ 
siderateness  encourages  us  to  believe  that  a  clearer 
grasp  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  will  act  powerfully 
on  our  present  social  order  in  the  direction  of  a 
further  and  better  social  evolution.  For  it  is  clear 
that,  in  the  light  of  the  words  and  example  of  Jesus, 
there  is  a  great  deal  in  the  present  social  system 
which  stands  condemned.  A  system  that  throws 
great  quantities  of  wealth  into  a  few  hands  and  leaves 
masses  of  the  population  in  utter  poverty,  that  does 
much  to  encourage  the  alienation  of  classes  by  its 
unrestricted  competitions,  that  is  attended  by  such 
evils  as  sweating,  unemployment,  bad  housing,  and 
wages  that  are  insufficient  to  sustain  life,  will  find  it 
difficult  to  justify  itself  before  the  bar  of  Jesus. 

Ill 

We  turn  now  to  consider  the  duty  of  the  Christian 
Church  in  the  light  of  the  conclusions  already  reached. 
How  is  the  Church  to  vindicate  and  apply  this  social 
message  of  Jesus  ?  This  is  one  of  the  most  pressing 


SOCIAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 


389 


questions  facing  her  at  the  present  moment,  and  on 
the  answer  she  gives  to  it  will  depend  largely  her 
future  influence  in  the  national  life. 

We  are  met  at  the  outset  by  a  contention  which  is 
very  widely  held,  that  the  Church  has  nothing  to  do 
with  such  questions  at  all.  It  is  her  business  to 
preach  the  Gospel  and  save  souls.  If  she  has  a 
function  in  regard  to  social  problems  at  all  it  is  of 
the  most  indirect  kind.  Let  her  make  men  Christian, 
and  Christian  men  will  then  Christianize  the  social 
order.  Her  work,  at  any  rate,  is  purely  spiritual,  and 
she  will  be  doing  the  best  service  by  attending  to 
that  faithfully.  In  a  recent  essay  Professor  Harnack 
has  put  this  view  with  his  accustomed  force  and 
clearness  ;  “  At  the  present  time  Christianity  is  being 
reproached  with  never,  at  any  time  in  its  history, 
having  taken  the  lead  in  economic  reforms.  Even 
if  the  facts  were  in  accordance  with  this  sweeping 
statement,  it  would  be  no  real  reproach,  in  view  of 
the  distinctive  character  of  the  Christian  religion. 
It  is  enough  if  religion  prepares  men’s  minds  for 
great  economic  changes,  ...  if  it  foresees  the  new 
moral  duties  which  these  impose  ;  if  it  knows  how 
to  adapt  itself  to  them,  and  perceives  the  right 
moment  at  which  to  step  in  with  its  forces,  and 
do  its  work.  A  religion  which  aims  at  saving  the 
soul  and  transforming  the  inner  man,  and  which 
regards  a  change  in  outward  circumstances  as  but 
a  small  matter  in  comparison  with  the  power  of 
evil,  can  only  follow  in  the  wake  of  earthly  changes 
and  exercise  an  after  influence  ;  it  is  not  qualified 
to  lead  the  way  in  economic  developments.”  “  As 
a  Christian  Church,”  he  says  later,  referring  to  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church,  “  it  cannot  disregard  the 


390 


THE  CHURCH  AND  THE 


fact  that  the  peace  promised  by  the  Gospel  is  a  peace 
which  the  world  cannot  give,  and  that  the  improve¬ 
ment  of  economic  conditions  is  not  the  duty  of 
religion.  .  .  .  After  all,  it  must  be  remembered  that 
the  chief  task  of  the  Church  is  still  the  preaching 
of  the  Gospel,  that  is  to  say,  the  message  of  redemp¬ 
tion  and  of  eternal  life.”  These  last  words  will  be 
unreservedly  accepted  by  all  Christians.  It  must 
always  be  the  main  business  of  the  Church  to  preach 
Christ,  and  to  win  souls  to  Him.  But,  without 
raising  the  question  as  to  what  is  included  in  the 
preaching  of  Christ  and  of  redemption,  good  reasons 
can  be  offered  in  opposition  to  the  view  that  the 
improvement  of  economic  conditions  is  no  part  of 
the  duty  of  religion,  and  that  the  Church  must 
confine  herself  to  “  spiritual  ”  functions. 

(i)  One  reason  is  that  Jesus  Himself  did  not  do  so. 
He  concerned  Himself  largely  (as  has  been  shown) 
with  these  very  physical  and  social  needs  that  con¬ 
stitute  our  “  economic  conditions  ”  to-day.  The 
example  He  chose  of  what  neighbourliness  implied 
was  the  succour  of  a  man  who  was  lying  on  the 
roadside  in  distress,  and  He  held  up  to  scorn  the 
representatives  of  the  Church  of  the  time  for  their 
callous  neglect  of  this  claim  on  their  love.  Jesus 
was,  of  course,  only  doing  what  the  prophets  had 
done  when  He  cared  for  social  conditions,  and  He 
was  followed  in  this  by  the  early  Church.  Can 
the  Church  to-day  be  wrong  in  following  the  example 
of  her  Master  ?  Can  she  be  doing  her  part  faithfully 
if  she  fails  to  imitate  Him  in  her-  ministry  and 
neglects  the  very  needs  He  laboured  to  meet?  The 
spirituality  which  would  prevent  a  Church  from 
touching  economic  conditions  can  hardly  be  recog- 


SOCIAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 


39* 


nised  as  the  spirituality  of  the  Lord.  It  is  rather 
a  fruit  of  that  ascetic  view  of  life  which  He  deliber¬ 
ately  condemned.  No  work  can  pretend  to  be  more 
spiritual  than  the  work  of  Jesus  Himself,  who  fed  the 
hungry,  healed  the  sick,  rescued  the  outcast,  and 
lifted  the  fallen. 

(2)  Another  reason  is  that,  if  the  social  problems 
are  not  to  be  solved  by  the  Church  alone,  neither  can 
they  be  solved  by  the  State  alone.  It  is  not  denied 
that  the  State  has  a  Christian  character,  or  ought 
to  have.  But  there  is  no  sufficient  security  for  this 
unless  in  the  closer  union  of  Church  and  State  in  the 
endeavour  to  find  a  way  of  dealing  effectively  with  the 
pressing  problems  of  the  social  order.  The  Elberfeld 
system  in  Germany,  which  was  suggested  and  origin¬ 
ated  by  the  work  of  Dr.  Chalmers  in  Glasgow,  is  a 
good  instance  of  how  State  action  and  voluntary 
action  can  be  united  in  the  meeting  of  a  social  need. 
And  probably  the  most  hopeful  prospect  of  solving 
our  own  difficult  questions  lies  in  such  a  combination 
on  a  larger  scale,  in  which  the  Church  would  act  as 
a  conscience  to  the  State  and  also  a  practical  helper, 
and  the  State  would  act  as  a  controlling  and  executive 
force.  But  for  this  union  of  faith  and  action  a  Church 
is  needed  which  is  alive  to  the  problems  of  the  time 
and  prepared  to  apply  to  them  the  principles  of  her 
Master’s  life  and  teaching. 

(3)  Another  reason  why  the  Church  must  concern 
herself  with  economic  conditions  is  that  a  living 
Church  can  never  stand  apart  from  the  great  move¬ 
ments  of  an  age  without  suffering  grave  injury.  The 
social  problem  is  the  problem  of  our  time,  and  every¬ 
where  we  find  the  uprising  of  a  new  conscience  about 
it.  Is  it  wise  or  right  for  the  Church  to  say  that 


392 


THE  CHURCH  AND  THE 


she  has  neither  part  nor  lot  in  such  a  movement? 
Surely  no  Church  which  is  in  touch  with  the  charac¬ 
teristic  and  deepest  thoughts  and  emotions  of  an  age 
can  take  such  a  position.  Hitherto  this  movement 
of  social  interest  and  activity  has  been  too  much 
outside  the  Church,  and  one  regrettable  result  has 
been  to  throw  the  leadership  of  the  poor  into  the 
hands  of  those  who  are  outside  the  Church  and  out 
of  sympathy  with  its  creed.  One  cannot  but  feel 
that  it  is  a  serious  reflection  on  the  Church  of  our 
time  that  the  people  who  are  longing  for  better  con¬ 
ditions  of  life  and  labour  have  had  to  look  for 
sympathy  and  leadership  elsewhere.  The  Labour 
movement  has  become  a  religion  to  many  men  and 
women  largely  because  the  Church  has  not  shown 
a  real  interest  in  their  lot  and  has  not  been  ready 
to  champion  their  just  cause.  It  is  neither  necessary 
nor  desirable  that  the  Church  should  enter  the 
political  sphere  or  take  sides  in  political  or  party 
warfare.  And  if  this  means  (as  it  does)  that  she 
ought  not  to  commit  herself  to  any  one  method  of 
social  redemption,  it  also  means  that  she  ought  not 
to  commit  herself  against  it  either.  If  the  Church 
should  not  throw  herself  on  the  side  of  Socialism, 
neither  should  she  take  a  side  against  it.  There 
should  be  room  and  opportunity  for  both  sides  in 
the  Church’s  life  and  activity.  Whatever  is  true  and 
sound  in  the  socialist  contention  will  be  realised  in 
the  future  economic  arrangements  of  our  country,  and 
it  would  be  neither  wise  nor  right  for  the  Church 
to  take  up  an  entirely  hostile  attitude  to  the  whole 
socialist  movement.  But  while  thus  remaining  free 
from  any  one-sided  attachment  to  a  party,  the  Church 
has  a  clear  path  of  duty  as  to  economic  conditions. 


SOCIAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 


393 


If  she  finds  such  conditions  seriously  hindering  her 
work,  if  there  are  injustices  which  prevent  men  and 
women  from  realising  what  they  were  meant  to  be, 
if  there  are  social  conditions  which  make  the  offer  of 
the  Gospel  seem  a  mockery,  the  Church  is  bound  to 
do  her  part,  with  all  the  great  force  at  her  command, 
in  the  effort  to  sweep  these  oppressive  conditions 
out  of  existence.  By  many  in  the  Churches  this 
obligation  is  already  admitted  in  the  case  of  the 
drink  traffic.  But  if  it  be  clear  in  this  case,  why 
not  in  regard  to  other  evils  just  as  hostile  to  the 
Gospel  ?  If  the  Church  finds  sweating  and  bad  housing 
and  excessive  poverty  blocking  the  way  of  Christ  to 
the  masses  of  our  land,  can  it  be  other  than  her  duty 
to  go  forward  in  the  strength  of  Christ  and  deal  with 
them  ? 

What  the  Church  can  do  and  ought  to  do,  then, 
in  vindicating  the  teaching  of  her  Master,  becomes 
plain. 

i.  Let  her  reassert  the  plain  social  principles  that 
underlie  all  the  life  and  teaching  of  her  Lord.  Such 
as  these*:  (i)  Our  neighbours  |are  all  those  who 
need  us,  and  we  are  to  love  them  as  ourselves ; 
(2)  All  souls  are  God’s ;  therefore  all  oppression  of 
the  poor,  and  all  defrauding  of  the  wage-earner  of 
his  right  to  a  just  return  for  his  labour  are  of  the 
devil ;  (3)  The  law  of  the  Christian  life  is  the  service 
of  the  weak,  and  those  who  cannot  help  themselves  ; 
(4)  The  poor  are  the  special  objects  of  Christian 
love  ;  (5)  Wealth  is  a  trust,  and  a  means,  not  an 
end  ;  (6)  “  Whatsoever  ye  would  that  men  should  do 

*  See  Moral  Witness  of  the  Church  on  Economic  Subjects. 
A  report  presented  to  the  House  of  Convocation  by  a  Joint 
Committee.  S.P.C.K.,  1907. 


394 


THE  CHURCH  AND  THE 


to  you,  do  ye  even  so  to  them.”  These  are  some  of 
the  essential  parts  of  real  Christianity,  and  we  need 
to-day  a  new  vision  of  what  they  mean. 

2.  Let  the  Church  realise  and  reassert  the  social 
ideal  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  It  has  been  treated 
too  long  as  a  mere  cold  and  lifeless  idea.  So  much 
has  this  been  the  case  that  many  minds  regard  the 
phrase  with  a  certain  amount  of  antipathy.  This 
is  a  misfortune,  for  to  Jesus  it  meant  something  very 
great,  and  all  the  passion  and  warmth  of  His  love 
and  faith  were  concentrated  on  it.  And  therefore 
one  part  of  the  Church’s  duty  is  to  rescue  this  great 
social  idea  of  Jesus  from  the  misconception  under 
which  it  lies  concealed,  to  catch  something  of  the 
Lord’s  own  view  of  it,  and  to  realise  that  the  ful¬ 
filment  of  that  hope  of  Jesus  is  her  business  as  it 
was  His.  He  lived  to  make  the  kingdom  of  God 
a  reality.  She  lives  for  the  same  end,  not  only  to 
save  individual  souls,  but  to  work  and  pray  for  the 
coming  of  a  new  creation  on  earth,  for  the  re¬ 
generation  of  society,  so  that  it  may  reflect  the  love 
and  life  that  were  lavished  on  it  by  Jesus. 

3.  Let  the  Church  throw  her  influence  on  the  side 
of  righteousness  in  the  treatment  of  the  poor  and 
the  nation’s  workers.  Bishop  Gore  says  that  behind 
some  of  the  more  technical  and  political  proposals 
of  the  workers,  there  is  “a  fundamental  appeal  for 
justice  which  the  Christian  Church  cannot  ignore.” 
No  one  will  deny  this  who  realises  at  all  what  the 
conditions  are  amid  which  many  of  our  people  are 
spending  their  lives,  and  which  lack  many  of  the 
essentials  of  physical  and  moral  well-being.  People 
who  live  amid  such  conditions,  and  receive  often 
a  wage  on  which  no  human  being  could  properly 


SOCIAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 


395 


keep  soul  and  body  together,  cannot  be  expected  to 
realise  the  dignity  of  a  true  manhood  or  womanhood. 
It  is  not  wonderful  that  such  facts  produce  Socialists. 
And  if  to  many  in  the  Church  the  Socialist  way 
of  remedying  them  seems  wrong,  that  only  empha¬ 
sizes  the  duty  of  the  Church  at  least  to  bear  a 
fearless  and  clear  witness  on  behalf  of  justice.  If 
she  came  forward  with  such  a  public  testimony,  not 
only  would  her  way  to  the  hearts  of  the  masses  be 
cleared  for  her  spiritual  message,  but  she  would  be 
proving  herself  true  to  her  divine  mission  and  ful¬ 
filling  the  succession  of  the  true  Church  in  all 
ages. 

4.  Once  more :  it  is  the  part  of  the  Church  to 
supply  personal  service  in  the  spirit  of  the  life  of 
Jesus  and  in  response  to  His  summons.  It  has  been 
pointed  out  that  Jesus  not  only  enunciated  general 
principles,  but  gave  Himself  to  those  who  needed 
for  their  salvation  the  contact  of  His  pure,  joyous, 
loving  nature.  This  was  the  great  redemptive  force 
in  His  ministry.  There  are  many  different  ways  in 
which  we  can  follow  Him  in  this.  Christian  men 
and  women  are  doing  the  same  work  when  they  give 
their  service  on  public  boards,  on  town  councils, 
parish  councils,  school  boards,  and  Parliament. 
There  is  scope,  and  there  is  great  need,  in  such  work 
for  men  and  women  of  Christian  convictions  and 
character.  Most  effective  service  can  thus  be  given 
to  the  kingdom.  And  in  the  truest  sense  such 
service  is  in  the  spirit  of  our  Lord’s  own  life  and 
labours.  But,  in  addition  to  this,  there  is  one  way 
of  service  to  the  kingdom  which  is  urgently  called 
for — the  personal  contact  of  the  love  and  faith  of 
Christian  people  with  the  ignorance,  squalor  and 


THE  CHURCH  AND  THE 


196 


vice  of  the  slums.  No  one  can  read  a  book  like 
Bishop  Ingram’s  Work  in  Great  Cities  without  being 
deeply  impressed  by  the  power  for  good  which  can  be 
exercised  by  this  personal  contact.  It  is  not  only 
the  preaching  of  Christ  that  is  needed,  but  the  power 
of  Christ  in  living,  loving,  believing  men  and  women. 
It  is  sympathy,  kindness  and  brotherhood,  acting  as 
a  leaven  amid  the  darkness  and  hopelessness  that 
envelop  the  lives  of  so  many  of  the  “  lost  ”  in  our 
own  society.  In  this  way  alone  will  the  gulf  that 
separates  East  End  and  West  End  be  bridged.  It 
was  bridged  by  the  ministry  of  Jesus  ;  it  can  be 
bridged  by  the  ministry  of  those  who  have  learned 
of  Him  and  been  baptized  with  the  spirit  of  His 
passion  and  sacrifice. 

These  are  some  of  the  lines  on  which  action  on  the 
part  of  the  Church  seems  at  the  present  time  called 
for  by  the  life  and  teaching  of  her  Master.  And  it 
only  remains  to  be  said  that  for  this  work  of  social 
redemption  the  Church  has  a  unique  opportunity. 
In  the  great  company  of  Christian  men  and  women 
throughout  our  land  there  is  a  tremendous  social 
force  which  would  be  sufficient  to  solve  our 
hardest  problems  if  it  could  be  elicited  and  applied. 
And  besides,  in  the  Church,  and  in  the  Church  alone, 
there  is  a  sphere  prepared  for  the  union  in  this  service 
of  all  classes.  Her  comprehensive  platform  can  easily 
hold  all  kinds  of  opinions  ;  and  in  the  Gospel  which 
all  believe  there  is  the  living  source  of  those  higher 
enthusiasms  and  sacrifices  in  which  lies  the  hope  of 
all  social  betterment. 

What  has  hitherto  prevented  the  Church  from 
doing  the  social  service  for  which  she  is  thus  so 
richly  endowed  has  been,  first,  the  fact  that  she  has 


SOCIAL  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 


397 


been  too  much  identified  with  one  class.  The  re¬ 
proach  levelled  ng.iinst  the  ( a  mob  hi  air  Icrt  times 

was  that  she  was  the  Church  of  the  poor.  The  re¬ 
proach  levelled  against  her  in  modern  times  is  that  she 
is  the  Church  of  the  rich  and  the  comfortable.  This 
has  been  one  serious  hindrance  to  her  influence  with 
the  masses  of  the  population.  Another  has  been  the 
want  in  her  membership  of  an  awakened  social 
conscience.  But  it  is  not  too  late  for  the  Church  to 
step  forward  and  assume  her  own  place  at  the  head 
of  the  social  movement  of  our  time.  The  masses  are 
becoming  aware  of  the  new  spirit  that  is  arising  in 
the  Churches,  and  they  are  keenly  alive  to  the  value 
of  the  help  that  may  thus  be  given  in  solving  the 
most  urgent  of  our  social  questions.  There  is  not 
the  antipathy  to  the  Church  that  there  used  to  be 
among  the  working  people  who  feel  deeply  on  these 
matters.  There  is  a  greater  readiness  to  believe  in 
her  bona  fides ,  and  to  co-operate  with  her  in  social 
work.  Many  acute  observers  believe  that  the  Church 
has  an  opportunity  such  as  she  has  not  had  for  a 
long  time.  Is  she  ready  to  take  advantage  of  it  ? 


INDEX 


Adversity,  7 
Agnosticism,  249 
Alms,  68,  72,  73,  74,  138,  302, 
321 

Anarchy,  359 
Angels,  232,  327 
Antiochus  Epiphanes,  129 
Apocrypha,  24,  35,  42,  96, 
255,  256,  292 
Apostles,  50 

Aquinas,  Thomas,  8,  211 
Arbitration,  366 
Aristotle,  2,  6,  9,  21,  37,  151, 
210,  244,  253 
Arnold,  Matthew,  88 
Atonement,  261 
Augustine,  357,  367 

Backsliding,  236 
Bacon,  251 
Balch,  333 
Baptism,  283 

Baptist,  John  the,  41,  43,  155 
Barth,  292 
Baxter,  12 

Beatitudes,  31,  59,  206 
Beauty,  77 

Blessedness,  24,  38,  52,  55,  59, 
83,  228 

Body,  295,  324 


Bois,  154 

Brotherhood,  27,  52,  88,  205, 
222,  301,  555 

Bruce,  30,  87,  143,  168,  171 
Butler,  13,  245 

Calvin,  282,  316 
Capital,  13,  201 
Character,  6,  8,  76,  151,  204 
Children,  341 

Church,  12,  28,  282,  285,  321, 

334.  336 
Cicero,  66,  133 

Commandments,  11,  67,  112, 
246,  272 
Compassion,  305 
Conditional  Immortality,  98 
Confession,  74,  165 
Conscience,  13,  68,  79,  127, 
191,  233,  347,  357 
Conventionalism,  122 
Conversion,  156 
Corban,  269 
Courage,  8,  205 
Courtesy,  324 
Covetousness,  86 
Cremer,  209 
Criminals,  14,  358 
Cress,  217-30 
Crucifixion,  219 


399 


400 


INDEX 


Culture,  88 
Cutten,  154 


Dale,  154 
Dalman,  256 
Davidson,  102 
Death,  92 
Debt,  138,  305 
Decision,  1 66 
Devil,  94 

Disciples,  201,  202,  210,  223, 
235.  275,  278,  326 
Discipline,  283 
Disease,  323,  324 
Divorce,  13,  333,  340 
Dogma,  1,  16,  79 
Dorner,  A.,  15  ;  I.  A.,  353 
Drunkenness,  70,  108,  no,  319 
Duncan,  188 


Ecce  Homo,  290,  309,  331 
Edification,  310 
Edwards,  154 
Ehrhardt,  259 
Eisenmenger,  97 
Eliot,  89 
End,  4,  5,  37,  85 
Ethic  or  Ethics,  1-17,  77 
Evangelization,  325-28 
Evidences,  250 

Faith,  8,  175-94,  270,  358-60 
Family,  13,  331 -48 
Fasting,  68,  72 
Fatherhood,  255-62 
Fear,  162,  248,  327 
Field,  86 
Flesh,  127,  338 
Following,  197 


Forgiveness,  304,  310 
Francis,  St.,  136 
Frank,  Von,  154 
Freewill,  14,  15 
Friendship,  204 

Gambling,  iio 
Gehenna,  94,  97 
Giving,  317 
Gluttony,  127 
Goethe,  88,  163 
Good,  The  Highest,  2,  5-10, 
15,  17,  21,  37,  56,  235 
Gospel,  21-38,  41,  51,  52,  55, 

325 

Greatness,  362 
Greece,  8,  64,  66,  310 
Grenfell  and  Hunt,  29 
Guilt,  13,  14,  145 

Habit,  14 

Happiness,  37,  38,  54,  228 
Haring,  152 
Harless,  241 

Harnack,  25-7,  30,  176,  186 

Hastings,  317 

Heaven,  35-7,  95,  135,  228 

Hegel,  357 

Hell,  93-104 

Heredity,  14,  335,  354 

Herod,  90 

Herrmann,  184,  233 
Herzog,  154 
Highmindedness,  21 1 
Hobbes,  358 
Holiness,  77,  205 
Holtzmann,  H.  J.,  55,  189 ; 
Otto,  258 

Home,  148,  224,  299,  328,  344 
Horace,  16 1 
Hospitality,  316,  324 


INDEX 


401 


Humanitarianism,  14 
Hypocrisy,  73,  76 

Ideal,  5,  84,  86,  316 
Idolatry,  12 1,  144 
Ihmels,  154 

Imitation  of  Christ,  197,  214 
Immortality,  35,  99,  100,  29S 
Impurity,  no 
Individual,  27,  28,  51 
Industry,  140 
Inwardness,  68-71 
Isaiah,  61,  300 

Jacoby,  36,  261 
James,  154,  246 
Jefferson,  205 

Jerusalem,  144,  251,  281,  364 
Jews,  124,  143,  144,  145 
Josephus,  128,  144 
Joy,  23,  205 

Judgment,  93,  100,  101,  103 
Justice,  60 
Justin,  65 

Kant,  77,  244 
Kilpatrick,  102 
Kingdom,  23-9,  41-56,  83 
Kings,  42,  43,  52,  93 
Knox,  no 
Kostlin,  154 

Labour,  13,  140,  353,  355,  356 

Latimer,  no 

Law,  n,  12,  357,  358 

Laws,  338 

Lecky,  12 

Lees,  Dr.  Cameron,  102 
Lemme,  353 


Life,  21,  89-92 
Logia,  29,  91,  113 
Lost,  115,  116,  118,  227,  327 
Loyalty,  52 

Luther,  62,  63,  155,  270 
Luxury,  127 

Maccunn,  6 
Mackintosh,  102 
M’Lennan, 333 
Macleod,  272 
Magnificence,  210-13 
Man,  293-301 
Marriage,  13,  36,  333 
Mary,  The  Virgin,  48 
Materialism,  14 
Medicine,  323 
Meekness,  34,  208-13 
Mercy,  32,  207,  270,  310 
Messiah,  24,  46,  49 
Miracles,  180,  186,  296,  324 
Mohammed,  36,  225 
Monasticism,  199,  228-30,  322 
Money,  86,  134-42,  322,  352 
Moody,  170 
Moralists,  84,  89 
Moses,  62-7,  79,  128,  275,  340 
Motives,  9,  70,  292,  332 
Moule,  221 
Mozley,  119 
Murray,  326 

Nation,  28 
Naturalness,  74-7 
Negative,  Morality,  91,  102 
Nietzsche,  211,  212,  358 

Offences,  230-48,  346 
Opinion,  69 
Optimism,  152,  205 
Orphans,  308 


402 


INDEX 


Patience,  209 
Paton,  234 
Patriotism,  363 
Paul,  St.,  22,  61,  63,  125,  175, 
179,  202,  358 
Peabody,  331  ff. 

Peace,  21,  33,  207 
Penance,  156 
Persecution,  146,  234 
Pessimism,  152 

Pharisees,  62,  67,  71,  117-27, 
129,  157,  160,  210,  253,  260, 
267 

Philanthropy,  310 
Philosophy,  12,  16,  64,  65,  83, 
84,  152,  210,  234,  244,  246, 
250,  310 
Pitt,  244 
Plato,  133 
Politics,  12 

Poverty,  86,  134-42,  319 
Prayer,  68,  72,  74,  179,  277-80, 
288 

Pride,  127,  210 
Property,  322,  335,  354 
Prophets,  182,  226,  233 
Prosdechomenoi,  48,  191 
Protestantism,  32 
Psychology,  246,  247 
Publicans,  107-16,  159 
Punishment,  68,  97,  357 
Purity,  32,  207,  250 


Rabbis,  97,  199,  242,  268 
Rae,  371 
Ranke,  Von,  360 
Rau,  137,  229 

Repentance,  126,  151,  172-75 
Resentment,  310 
Residuum,  107 
Rest,  21,  192 


Restitution,  169 
Resurrection,  36 
Reverence,  205 
Revival,  Welsh,  170 
Reward,  36,  226,  228,  355,  356 
Riches,  86,  89,  320,  322 
Righteousness,  59-80,  83,  87, 
207 

Rights,  357 
Ritschl,  56,  259 
Rogge,  135 

Rome,  8,  43,  66,  122,  282,  310, 
336,  358-60 
Rothe,  16,  352 
Royce,  246 


Sabbath,  270-74 
Sadducees,  128-42,  261,  267 
Salmond,  100 
Sanday,  317 
Savonarola,  no 
Schleiermacher,  16,  352 
Schmidt,  154 
Schwarze,  154 
Schweitzer,  55 
Scribes,  67,  68,  71,  289 
Scripture,  174 
Secrecy,  71-74 
Seeberg,  153 

Selfishness,  127,  299,  317 
Self-sacrifice,  223,  226,  229 
Sermon  on  the  Mount,  1,  66, 
67-80,  87,  117,  203,  311,  314, 
3i7 

Service,  213,  301 
Shorter  Catechism,  4,  5 
Simeon,  221 

Sin,  83,  107-48,  151,  159 
Skinner,  61 
Sloth,  127 
Smith,  272 


INDEX 


403 


Smyth,  332 
Sonship,  33,  165,  257 
Sparta,  11 
Starbuck,  154 
Stearns,  154 
Stevens,  61 
Stocker,  334 
Stoics,  37 
Strauss,  137 
Strong,  224 

Socialism,  27,  28,  51,  56,  134- 
42,  320,  331,  371-97 
Society,  68,  352,  354 
Socrates,  66,  177 
Solon,  11 
Sonship,  33,  164 
Soul,  85,  92,  148.  236,  297,  327 
State,  6,  12,  13,  224,  285,  334, 
336,  351-66 
Summum  bonum,  3,  37 
Swearing,  Profane,  112 
Sympathy,  291,  300,  323 
Synagogue,  2 66,  278,  284 

Taxes,  361 

Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles, 
153 

Temperance,  8 
Temple,  130,  266,  280 
Temptation,  49 
Tholuck,  276 
Titius,  36 

Tolstoi,  137,  140,  14b  31 1 
Tradition,  128,  268 
Trust,  179,  252 


Virtue,  2,  5-10,  15,  17,  56,  77, 
i5T  237 
Virtues,  8,  64 
Vorbrodt,  154 


War,  13,  365 
Watchfulness,  237 
Way,  153 
Wealth,  86,  320 
Weinel,  305 
Wellhausen,  85,  283 
Wendt,  95,  154,  314 
Westermarck,  333 
Widows,  300 
Wilberforce,  245 
Will  of  God,  53,  206,  209,  222, 
269 

Wisdom,  8 
Woes,  7,  1 18 
Woman,  69,  198,  294 
Woman  that  was  a  Sinner,  115, 
170-72,  305 

Worldliness,  78,  128,  133, 

156 

Worship,  265-85 
Wrede,  55 


Yoke,  193 

Zacch.eus,  hi,  168,  254 
Zahn,  271 
Zeal,  290 


Date  Due 


/ 

-  '■  ^ 


PRINTED 


IN  U.  S.  A. 


Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


